-
ULA Enter Negotiations With Union IAM | Daily Updates planned by ULA
by
russianhalo117
on 14 Apr, 2015 22:21
-
ULA Enter Negotiation With Union IAM Daily Updates by ULALINK: http://www.ulalaunch.com/negotiations.aspxLINK: http://www.ulalaunch.com/negotiation-resources.aspxPress Release: United Launch Alliance IAM Employees Approve New Contract
http://www.ulalaunch.com/ula-iam-employees-approve-new-contract.aspxProposed contract with all redline changes. (
http://www.ulalaunch.com/uploads/docs/Negotiations/2015/2015_ULA_IAM_Master_Final_Proposal_All_changes_in_redline_4-28-15.pdf)
Strike Calculator
http://www.ulalaunch.com/negotiation-strike-calculator.aspxWage Progression Calculator (Requires Excel; click "Read Only" if you receive a prompt)
http://www.ulalaunch.com/uploads/docs/Negotiations/2015/Wage_Progression_Calculator_IAM.xlsxFrequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
http://www.ulalaunch.com/negotiations.aspx#FAQsTotal Rewards
http://www.ulalaunch.com/negotiations.aspx#Total_RewardsEmployee Communications
http://www.ulalaunch.com/negotiations.aspx#Employee_CommsDaily Negotiation Updates (April 13-25, 2015)
http://www.ulalaunch.com/negotiations.aspx#Daily_UpdatesFrequently Asked Questions (FAQ)General FAQs (Updated April 30, 2015)
http://www.ulalaunch.com/uploads/docs/Negotiations/2015/2015_General_FAQs_FINAL_4-30-15.pdfBenefits FAQs (Updated April 30, 2015)
http://www.ulalaunch.com/uploads/docs/Negotiations/2015/2015-4-30_ULA_Benefits_FAQ.pdfRetirement Plan FAQs (Updated April 29, 2015)
http://www.ulalaunch.com/uploads/docs/Negotiations/2015/2015_4-29_ULA_Pension_FAQ.pdfWork Stoppage FAQs (Updated April 30, 2015)
http://www.ulalaunch.com/uploads/docs/Negotiations/2015/2015-04-30_ULA_Work_Stoppage_FAQ.pdfTotal RewardsLog into the ULA Benefits Center to see your earnings and what the company pays on your behalf in addition to your wages.
Benefits Center Website:
https://www.benefitsweb.com/ula.htmlInstructions: How to see your Total Rewards
http://www.ulalaunch.com/uploads/docs/Negotiations/2015/TotalRewards-ULABenefitsWeb.pdfEmployee CommunicationsApril 27, 2015 - Letter to IAMAW-represented Employees
http://www.ulalaunch.com/uploads/docs/Negotiations/2015/2015-04-27_Letter_to_IAM-Rep_Employees.pdfDaily Negotiation UpdatesApril 13, 2015- Opened union negotiations with the International Association of Machinsts and Aerospace Workers (IAM)
- Company is reviewing the union’s non-economic proposal
- Company/Union subcommittee was formed to review training/travel language
Full summary - April 13, 2015 (PDF:
http://www.ulalaunch.com/uploads/docs/Negotiations/2015/DailyUpdate_4-13-15.pdf)
April 14, 2015- The Company and the Union exchanged non-economic proposals today, discussions will continue on Wednesday
- Subcommittee will meet Wednesday to continue discussions on Article 17 General Provisions (Training) and Article 9 Travel
Full Summary - April 14, 2015 (PDF:
http://www.ulalaunch.com/uploads/docs/Negotiations/2015/DailyUpdate_4-14-15.pdf)
April 15, 2015- The Company provided a revised proposal this evening in response to concerns raised by the Union at the table.
- The Subcommittee on Article 17 General Provisions (Training) and Article 9 Travel continued discussions today and will meet again at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday.
Full Summary - April 15, 2015 (PDF:
http://www.ulalaunch.com/uploads/docs/Negotiations/2015/DailyUpdate_4-15-15.pdf)
April 16, 2015- Agreements were reached on multiple articles and LOUs
- Productive Subcommittee meeting discussions continued
- The Company and Union exchanged proposals on several articles
Full Summary - April 16, 2015 (PDF:
http://www.ulalaunch.com/uploads/docs/Negotiations/2015/DailyUpdate_4-16-15.pdf)
April 17, 2015- The Company provided the Union with additional Tentative Agreements based on the verbal agreements reached at the table
- The Union provided its first Economic Proposal
Full Summary - April 16, 2015 (PDF:
http://www.ulalaunch.com/uploads/docs/Negotiations/2015/DailyUpdate_4-17-15.pdf)
April 18, 2015- The Company began evaluating the Union’s first Economic Proposal.
- The Company and Union agreed to meet on Sunday at 2:00 pm to discuss the Union’s response to the Company’s proposal on Article 9 (Travel), Article 17 (Training) and Article 18 (New Technology/Pilot Projects).
Full Summary - April 18, 2015 (PDF:
http://www.ulalaunch.com/uploads/docs/Negotiations/2015/DailyUpdate_4-18-15.pdf)
April 19, 2015- The Union provided a counter proposal on Articles 9, 17 and 18. The Company will respond to the Union’s counter Monday morning.
- The Company and the Union reached Tentative Agreement on multiple Articles and LOUs.
Full Summary - April 19, 2015 (PDF:
http://www.ulalaunch.com/uploads/docs/Negotiations/2015/DailyUpdate_4-19-15.pdf)
April 20, 2015- ULA provided its first Economic Proposal to the Union today.
- The Company passed Tentative Agreements to the Union regarding Article 9 (Travel), Article 17 (Training) and Article 18 (New Technology/Pilot Projects).
Full Summary - April 20, 2015 (PDF:
http://www.ulalaunch.com/uploads/docs/Negotiations/2015/DailyUpdate_4-20-15.pdf)
April 21, 2015- The Union and the Company exchanged economic proposals.
- Highlights of the Company’s economic proposal included in the summary.
- Additional pension Q&As posted.
Full Summary - April 21, 2015 (PDF:
http://www.ulalaunch.com/uploads/docs/Negotiations/2015/DailyUpdate_4-21-15.pdf)
April 22, 2015- The Union provided its third Economic Proposal.
- The Company provided a proposal on Article 8 to the Union.
Full Summary - April 22, 2015 (PDF:
http://www.ulalaunch.com/uploads/docs/Negotiations/2015/DailyUpdate_4-22-15.pdf)
April 23, 2015- The Company provided the Union with its fourth Economic Proposal this afternoon.
- The Company and the Union signed Tentative Agreements on Articles 9, 17, 18.
Full Summary - April 23, 2015 (PDF:
http://www.ulalaunch.com/uploads/docs/Negotiations/2015/DailyUpdate_4-23-15.pdf)
April 25, 2015- The Company provided its Final Offer to the Union. After review, the Union Negotiating Committee indicated they would not recommend the contract to the membership.
- Highlights of ULA’s Final Offer posted.
Full Summary - April 25, 2015 (PDF:
http://www.ulalaunch.com/uploads/docs/Negotiations/2015/DailyUpdate_4-25-15.pdf)
Highlights from ULA's Final Contract Offer (PDF:
http://www.ulalaunch.com/uploads/docs/Negotiations/2015/2015_4-28_Proposed_Master_Contract_Summary_Benefit_Highlights_Final_4-25-15.pdf)
April 28, 2015Proposed Contract with all Redline Changes
(PDF:
http://www.ulalaunch.com/uploads/docs/Negotiations/2015/2015_ULA_IAM_Master_Final_Proposal_All_changes_in_redline_4-28-15.pdf)
-
#1
by
Jim
on 14 Apr, 2015 22:37
-
Maybe a ploy by ULA to get concessions so they can compete better with Spacex. Show the world how well the union is compensated
-
#2
by
Zed_Noir
on 15 Apr, 2015 12:47
-
From the union's perspective, keeping ULA healthy is essential. As I don't see them setting up shop at Hawthorne any time soon. Some piece of the pie is better than no pie.
-
#3
by
kevin-rf
on 15 Apr, 2015 13:25
-
I don't know, after IAM's failure to organize the Volkswagen factory in Tennessee last year, them now saying they might delay the vote to organize Boeing SC (787 factory, they don't think they can win). Losing any ground with ULA would be a bad thing. I suspect IAM is going to come to the table hard. They most likely feel that they need a win.
-
#4
by
russianhalo117
on 16 Apr, 2015 03:29
-
First post updated with latest negotiation updates.
-
#5
by
russianhalo117
on 16 Apr, 2015 18:54
-
First post updated with latest negotiation updates posted on today.
-
#6
by
kevin-rf
on 17 Apr, 2015 14:13
-
-
#7
by
russianhalo117
on 17 Apr, 2015 14:55
-
First post updated with latest negotiation updates posted on today.
-
#8
by
joek
on 18 Apr, 2015 07:13
-
Anyone know what percentage of ULA's workforce will be covered by this agreement?
-
#9
by
kevin-rf
on 18 Apr, 2015 11:53
-
Anyone know what percentage of ULA's workforce will be covered by this agreement?
Not sure if this is an answer, but from an October IAM press release: (
http://www.goiam.org/index.php/organize/iam-news/13805-iam-locals-join-forces-for-upcoming-ula-negotiations )
Formed in 2006, ULA is a joint venture of Boeing and Lockheed-Martin and employs approximate 850 IAM members of Local 44 in Decatur, AL, Local 2786 at Vandenberg AFB and District 166 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida.
That covers 850 employees (as of October 2014), and the presser indicates that all three locals are included in this.
Edit: Ouch, I just added all the locals instead of using the 850 listed at the beginning. Math is hard
-
#10
by
russianhalo117
on 18 Apr, 2015 21:03
-
First post updated with latest negotiation updates posted on today.
-
#11
by
joek
on 18 Apr, 2015 21:40
-
Not sure if this is an answer, but from an October IAM press release: ( http://www.goiam.org/index.php/organize/iam-news/13805-iam-locals-join-forces-for-upcoming-ula-negotiations )
Thanks. So ~25% of ULA's workforce, which appears to be primarily on the manufacturing side. Assuming there is marginal overlap... there are ~1900 ULA FTE's dedicated to ELC (~250 in manufacturing support) with a composite burdened labor rate of ~$320-340K/FTE/year (based on 2011 numbers and projections through 2015). While I'm sure ULA is looking everywhere they can to save costs, it looks like they are going to have to dig a lot deeper to obtain significant labor cost savings.
-
#12
by
Jim
on 19 Apr, 2015 12:38
-
Thanks. So ~25% of ULA's workforce, which appears to be primarily on the manufacturing side.
There are other unions and sites. There is IAW and Harlingen TX.
-
#13
by
russianhalo117
on 20 Apr, 2015 00:02
-
First post updated with latest negotiation updates posted on today.
-
#14
by
russianhalo117
on 23 Apr, 2015 03:33
-
First post updated with latest negotiation updates posted on today.
-
#15
by
ChrisWilson68
on 23 Apr, 2015 03:42
-
From the union's perspective, keeping ULA healthy is essential. As I don't see them setting up shop at Hawthorne any time soon. Some piece of the pie is better than no pie.
Union actions aren't always rational. People don't like giving up what they've gotten used to. If there's any uncertainty about whether they can keep it, they'll tend to convince themselves they can and gamble it all away.
Many companies have been driven out of business by their unions for that reason -- people won't believe that the company can't keep giving them all the pay and benefits they're already getting.
-
#16
by
sdsds
on 23 Apr, 2015 06:30
-
-
#17
by
kevin-rf
on 23 Apr, 2015 12:48
-
This is very on topic since the out come of these negotiations will directly impact how much freedom ULA will have in implementing and reducing Vulcan costs. It's no different from you going into your bosses office and asking for a raise. ULA says it needs to slash costs, that means jobs. IAM's job is to protect it's rank and file. I don't think ULA has had the toxic relationship with IAM that Boeing has.
Disclaimer: While not union I do live in a union household and my wife does have a position in her local. I actually spent last night looking over the numbers for the latest proposed teacher contract which when adding in healthcare actually has rank and file taking another 0. Greedy bunch.
-
#18
by
russianhalo117
on 25 Apr, 2015 20:51
-
First post updated to include ULA Final Offer and IAM Union rejection of all proposed ULA contracts posted on today. IAM to goto table final time on Sunday and if not resolved strike plan might be put in motion as early as Monday. Option for court appointed mediation is no longer mentioned.
-
#19
by
kevin-rf
on 26 Apr, 2015 01:06
-
As early as Monday? That's mighty fast. Are they currently working without a contract?
-
#20
by
russianhalo117
on 27 Apr, 2015 14:41
-
As early as Monday? That's mighty fast. Are they currently working without a contract?
To Clarify the vote is slated for 03 May 2015 and would take effect if ratified on same day and be enforced for three years. IAM negotiating committee voted to reject the Final Offer and recommended not holding a union vote on the ULA offer. Current contract extension expires at midnight (Timezone unknown) 03 May 2015.
-
#21
by
russianhalo117
on 28 Apr, 2015 23:07
-
First Post updated with ULA Final Proposed Contract with all Redline Changes (Released to public on 28 Apr 2015 around 4pm Eastern Time).
-
#22
by
LocalLodge44
on 30 Apr, 2015 19:36
-
To correct the previous post. IAM represented employees will be voting Sunday, May 5th at 2:15PM CST across all sites to include manufacturing and launch ops. If a strike does occur it will begin at midnight May 5 at all sites. This will effectively shut down all manufacturing and launch operations as the manufacturing in Harlingen is severely limited to only a handful of personnel and aren't tooled to handled the work.
To further clarify one of the other replies about labor. "Hands on labor", which is what we refer to as anyone that builds or launches the rockets, is less than 10% of total costs. With Boeing and Lockhead reporting close to .5 billion dollar profits from ULA 2013 and expecting higher returns for 2014, labor is the least of their concerns competing with SpaceX. That is if you are naive enough to believe there really is a competition.
-
#23
by
kevin-rf
on 30 Apr, 2015 20:04
-
Umm, May 5th is Tuesday. I thought it was Sunday May 3rd.
-
#24
by
LocalLodge44
on 30 Apr, 2015 20:09
-
Umm, May 5th is Tuesday. I thought it was Sunday May 3rd.
My apologies, calendar was on the wrong year. You are correct.
-
#25
by
arachnitect
on 30 Apr, 2015 20:31
-
To further clarify one of the other replies about labor. "Hands on labor", which is what we refer to as anyone that builds or launches the rockets, is less than 10% of total costs.
Thank you for posting.
I am surprised by how low "hands on labor" costs are. Can you clarify that the "less than 10%" is the full compensation (carrying cost?) of those employees, or is it only wages?
Thank you.
-
#26
by
rcoppola
on 30 Apr, 2015 23:58
-
I read over the latest ULA offerings and it would seem the Union has a major issue with the pension and healthcare items. Specifically what the membership is expected to contribute as well as transitioning to a 401K model for new members. If I'm reading the proposals right?
On another note: Considering their work impacts national security, would they even be allowed to walk?
-
#27
by
kevin-rf
on 01 May, 2015 00:18
-
IAM walked on Boeing a few years back. It was bitter strike.
-
#28
by
baldusi
on 01 May, 2015 00:37
-
IAM walked on Boeing a few years back. It was bitter strike.
And they got the 777-X factory on a non union friendly state. I believe that today Blue Origin's info release should be taken into consideration for this negotiation.
-
#29
by
kevin-rf
on 01 May, 2015 01:19
-
IAM walked on Boeing a few years back. It was bitter strike.
And they got the 777-X factory on a non union friendly state. I believe that today Blue Origin's info release should be taken into consideration for this negotiation.
My point was, IAM struck at a major defense contractor (one of ULA's two owners) a few years back. They can strike.
Also your statement is factually incorrect but brings up several points.
1. The result of the strike was Boeing established a non union second 7
87 assembly line in Charelston. The plant voted IAM out, and IAM just canceled a reunionization vote there because they where most likely going to lose.
2. When the 777-X program came arround, Boeing drove a very hard bargain with IAM and the 777-X will be assembled by IAM in Everett. The 777-X factory is not moving. I think many of the same concessions mentioned up thread.
ULA does not have the leverage Boeing has, they will not be building a new rocket plant in SC any time soon. I really don't think ULA can pull the threat of a new non-union rocket factory in order to get the consessions. I hope this does not turn ugly.
-
#30
by
ChrisWilson68
on 01 May, 2015 01:51
-
With Boeing and Lockhead reporting close to .5 billion dollar profits from ULA 2013 and expecting higher returns for 2014, labor is the least of their concerns competing with SpaceX. That is if you are naive enough to believe there really is a competition.
Wow, the union is even more in denial about the competitive threat from SpaceX than ULA management. And pretty dumb, too, to think that simply insulting anyone who believes there is a competitive threat without offering any evidence at all to the contrary will help convince anyone of anything.
-
#31
by
russianhalo117
on 01 May, 2015 01:51
-
IAM walked on Boeing a few years back. It was bitter strike.
And they got the 777-X factory on a non union friendly state. I believe that today Blue Origin's info release should be taken into consideration for this negotiation.
My point was, IAM struck at a major defense contractor (one of ULA's two owners) a few years back. They can strike.
Also your statement is factually incorrect but brings up several points.
1. The result of the strike was Boeing established a non union second 787 assembly line in Charelston. The plant voted IAM out, and IAM just canceled a reunionization vote there because they where most likely going to lose.
2. When the 777-X program came arround, Boeing drove a very hard bargain with IAM and the 777-X will be assembled by IAM in Everett. The 777-X factory is not moving. I think many of the same concessions mentioned up thread.
ULA does not have the leverage Boeing has, they will not be building a new rocket plant in SC any time soon. I really don't think ULA can pull the threat of a new non-union rocket factory in order to get the consessions. I hope this does not turn ugly.
ULA might request orders from DoD and DoJ so that workers cant strike against vehicles needed for national security. And not to start this as this is a non political thread, if they strike this will turn into a big executive and congressional political showdown from certain members/people about the situation.
-
#32
by
LocalLodge44
on 01 May, 2015 16:55
-
To further clarify one of the other replies about labor. "Hands on labor", which is what we refer to as anyone that builds or launches the rockets, is less than 10% of total costs.
Thank you for posting.
I am surprised by how low "hands on labor" costs are. Can you clarify that the "less than 10%" is the full compensation (carrying cost?) of those employees, or is it only wages?
Thank you.
Full compensation package to further clarify. The rough numbers are fairly easy to extrapolate using publicly available data if you look at the contracts.
Roughly:
14 missions in 2014 at an average cost of 225M per mission is 3.15B
The average total compensation package on the represented employees is 140,000 per year.
Average costs for 900 employees building and launching rockets: 126M
Average labor costs to build and launch each rocket for 2014 was 9M.
-
#33
by
arachnitect
on 01 May, 2015 17:02
-
To further clarify one of the other replies about labor. "Hands on labor", which is what we refer to as anyone that builds or launches the rockets, is less than 10% of total costs.
Thank you for posting.
I am surprised by how low "hands on labor" costs are. Can you clarify that the "less than 10%" is the full compensation (carrying cost?) of those employees, or is it only wages?
Thank you.
Full compensation package to further clarify. The rough numbers are fairly easy to extrapolate using publicly available data if you look at the contracts.
Roughly:
14 missions in 2014 at an average cost of 225M per mission is 3.15B
The average total compensation package on the represented employees is 140,000 per year.
Average costs for 900 employees building and launching rockets: 126M
Average labor costs to build and launch each rocket for 2014 was 9M.
thanks.
-
#34
by
Jim
on 01 May, 2015 17:08
-
The average total compensation package on the represented employees is 140,000 per year.
That doesn't cover the overtime
-
#35
by
LocalLodge44
on 01 May, 2015 17:15
-
With Boeing and Lockhead reporting close to .5 billion dollar profits from ULA 2013 and expecting higher returns for 2014, labor is the least of their concerns competing with SpaceX. That is if you are naive enough to believe there really is a competition.
Wow, the union is even more in denial about the competitive threat from SpaceX than ULA management. And pretty dumb, too, to think that simply insulting anyone who believes there is a competitive threat without offering any evidence at all to the contrary will help convince anyone of anything.
Mr. Wilson,
Not dumb enough to use a conjunction to begin a sentence but I digress.
I am not here to convince anyone of anything, as you suggested. I am simply here to inform this board of what is happening at ULA with respect to contract negotiations as it seemed to be on topic at the moment.
I simply stated an opinion that I believe SpaceX is of no threat to ULA. We work at ULA. Most, if not all of us, know various employees at SpaceX. Furthermore, a large majority have had or do have the opportunity to work at SpaceX. If you speak with the employees there you will find that most are over worked and under paid. They are terminated at the whim of their dictator for failure to follow marching orders and in some cases for simply questioning procedures. I have personally heard of technicians "pencil whipping" inspections and forging engineering buyoffs. They operate in a terrible environment that is only conducive to "young guns" that are high strung. That type of environment may work in the electric car industry where one can recall a certain block of cars. In our business where the only recall is watching your launch vehicle either not make it to the correct coordinates or explode on liftoff. It begs the question, how long can this type of work keep up before a major incident happens? So, many may see the Great Leader Musk as the dragon slayer. The employees that build and launch every day, that speak with SpaceX employees, know it is just a matter of time. In our business there aren't many second chances.
Then again, that is just one person's opinion.
-
#36
by
LocalLodge44
on 01 May, 2015 17:25
-
The average total compensation package on the represented employees is 140,000 per year.
That doesn't cover the overtime
You are correct and I am not privileged to that information. Regardless, do you truly think OT will make up that much of a difference? The average salary is 78k, the remainder is benefits package. Even doubling the average salary and adding back in, creating a 218k total package still puts total labor costs of each rocket at roughly 14M. That is doubling the salary, which is estimating an extremely high swing. My original point being, we are a very minute portion of the costs to build and launch a rocket.
-
#37
by
Jim
on 01 May, 2015 17:26
-
It begs the question, how long can this type of work keep up
As long as the source of "young guns" lasts. Which is infinite because that is where the action is and there is a stream of new hires for both engineering and technical jobs.
-
#38
by
Jim
on 01 May, 2015 17:28
-
I simply stated an opinion that I believe SpaceX is of no threat to ULA. We work at ULA..
That is the problem right there and why ULA is losing.
-
#39
by
LocalLodge44
on 01 May, 2015 17:52
-
I simply stated an opinion that I believe SpaceX is of no threat to ULA. We work at ULA..
That is the problem right there and why ULA is losing.
Jim, you seem like a nice enough guy. I won't debate you on whether ULA is loosing or winning. Like I said originally, the reason I came here was to inform everyone of the negotiation process at ULA. I gave a few opinions on SpaceX and some information I had first hand knowledge of. I will leave it to you "rocket scientists" to determine the winner and looser of the theoretical race. I am too busy building rockets.
-
#40
by
baldusi
on 01 May, 2015 18:16
-
To further clarify one of the other replies about labor. "Hands on labor", which is what we refer to as anyone that builds or launches the rockets, is less than 10% of total costs.
Thank you for posting.
I am surprised by how low "hands on labor" costs are. Can you clarify that the "less than 10%" is the full compensation (carrying cost?) of those employees, or is it only wages?
Thank you.
Full compensation package to further clarify. The rough numbers are fairly easy to extrapolate using publicly available data if you look at the contracts.
Roughly:
14 missions in 2014 at an average cost of 225M per mission is 3.15B
The average total compensation package on the represented employees is 140,000 per year.
Average costs for 900 employees building and launching rockets: 126M
Average labor costs to build and launch each rocket for 2014 was 9M.
The 140,000 per year is the average cost of salary plus benefits? If I got it right, then what's the value difference between what the union desires and what ULA's management is offering?
Please understand that whatever percentage of cost this represents on average, when you need to cut costs, you have to cut all through the board.
-
#41
by
Jim
on 01 May, 2015 18:27
-
Jim, you seem like a nice enough guy. I won't debate you on whether ULA is loosing or winning. Like I said originally, the reason I came here was to inform everyone of the negotiation process at ULA. I gave a few opinions on SpaceX and some information I had first hand knowledge of. I will leave it to you "rocket scientists" to determine the winner and looser of the theoretical race. I am too busy building rockets.
Can't be doing that while posting here and likely while on the clock.
1. The health of ULA can impact me both professionally and personally.
2. I have insight into both ULA and Spacex
3. I use to work for Boeing
4. I have seen and know the "work ethic" of former Boeing hourly workers at the Cape.
5. I have been to Decatur and Hawthorne. I have seen whose looking to work and who is worried about their breaks.
5. There is no debate. It is only a "theoretical race", because ULA isn't in it because it is not competitive. Tally the number of commercial launches of Spacex. Each one of those is a ULA loss in the "race".
There is nothing theoretical about this nor is it an opinion. ULA has to cut costs and clean up its act or it is going to lose to Spacex and the already highly compensated represented workers can do their share by reducing contract increases.
Also some allegiance to the company vs the lodge would help. Spacex worker get behind their company.
-
#42
by
LocalLodge44
on 01 May, 2015 18:58
-
Jim, you seem like a nice enough guy. I won't debate you on whether ULA is loosing or winning. Like I said originally, the reason I came here was to inform everyone of the negotiation process at ULA. I gave a few opinions on SpaceX and some information I had first hand knowledge of. I will leave it to you "rocket scientists" to determine the winner and looser of the theoretical race. I am too busy building rockets.
Can't be doing that while posting here and likely while on the clock.
1. The health of ULA can impact me both professionally and personally.
2. I have insight into both ULA and Spacex
3. I use to work for Boeing
4. I have seen and know the "work ethic" of former Boeing hourly workers at the Cape.
5. I have been to Decatur and Hawthorne. I have seen whose looking to work and who is worried about their breaks.
5. There is no debate. It is only a "theoretical race", because ULA isn't in it because it is not competitive. Tally the number of commercial launches of Spacex. Each one of those is a ULA loss in the "race".
There is nothing theoretical about this nor is it an opinion. ULA has to cut costs and clean up its act or it is going to lose to Spacex and the already highly compensated represented workers can do their share by reducing contract increases.
Also some allegiance to the company vs the lodge would help. Spacex worker get behind their company.
1) I am not on the clock, I am at home answering questions about the company's proposal. Good try though
2) If you used to work for Boeing you must enjoy(or will soon) your pension, one we would like to keep.
3) I can't speak for the Cape but I can speak for Decatur and your comment is insulting, disgraceful and shows your contempt for those that actually build what everyone else dreams up. The work ethic at Decatur is outstanding as is evident in their production rates and success rates. You don't need to travel to Decatur to know that. We build every rocket that ULA launches with 400 employees. That was 14 last year alone. You don't have that kind of success by spending the day in the break room. Break down the numbers Jim, where else can 28 people build a rocket in one year?
So at this point I question your honesty and intergity.
Concerning your last statement, my allegiance is to those that fight with me, not against me. An old Scottish proverb says, "The best way to keep a man loyal is to keep money in his purse." There is a lot of truth in that statement.
That is my final reply to you my friend.
-
#43
by
Jim
on 01 May, 2015 20:19
-
2) If you used to work for Boeing you must enjoy(or will soon) your pension, one we would like to keep.
3) I can't speak for the Cape but I can speak for Decatur and your comment is insulting, disgraceful and shows your contempt for those that actually build what everyone else dreams up. The work ethic at Decatur is outstanding as is evident in their production rates and success rates. You don't need to travel to Decatur to know that. We build every rocket that ULA launches with 400 employees.
3A. That was 14 last year alone. You don't have that kind of success by spending the day in the break room. Break down the numbers Jim, where else can 28 people build a rocket in one year?
4. Concerning your last statement, my allegiance is to those that fight with me, not against me. An old Scottish proverb says, "The best way to keep a man loyal is to keep money in his purse." There is a lot of truth in that statement.
2. Nope, I put my money into the 401k like most people should do.
3. You are right about the contempt. I was appalled by what I saw.
3.A Actually Hawthorne. They build more of their rocket and do it with less people per operation. Decatur doesn't build engines, avionics or pressure bottles.
4. Why is there fighting in the first place? There is money already in your purse. Again, you are already highly compensated. No need to ask for more.
-
#44
by
russianhalo117
on 02 May, 2015 01:46
-
First Post updated with Strike/wage calculators, FAQs, Benefits info, and ULA to IAM letter from today.
-
#45
by
Space Ghost 1962
on 02 May, 2015 01:49
-
LocalLodge44,
Welcome to the forum.
Your position sounds authentic, and most here would otherwise not hear the position you communicate. Instead of those of us here guessing the "why", you are actively arguing the position so we all can see the "why" you state.
Please continue to raise your voice with clarity. Even if not agreed with.
All here, like you, have opinions. Some have advice and share it. Some of that advice is expert level. Sometimes woven with opinion and terse irascibility. But still expert level. Useful to all. Especially to those with opinions.
I understand you believe that labor costs are incidental to LV manufacturing. That SpaceX is being beat by ULA. Perhaps that SpaceX won't even endure. Most here will hotly argue these claims, with facts or expert observations in the moment. You're encountering a small slice of that. Some of it personal. Won't share mine that I have, as you've gotten plenty already.
You're not being ill dealt with as you advocate your position best. Won't be easy with this crowd. But you are communicating and we "get" what you are saying.
Part of my job is tracking aerospace costs from raw materials to on orbit service. It has always been labor intensive, since its inception. Most of OrbitalATK's Antares/Cygnus is outsourced outside of the US, like the RD-180, for this reason. Point blank - to get cheap hourly labor.
Visit Hawthorne. "Cheap hourly labor". Done differently than Russia. In America. It is what it is.
What ever happens will be hard. Half of ULA launches have to go up against that. Gets much worse too, if rocket reuse kicks in - far fewer rockets to build for the same number of launches.
What I just said isn't opinion. Its fact. And that's ... hard.
Again, welcome to the forum.
-
#46
by
Prober
on 02 May, 2015 03:16
-
Jim, you seem like a nice enough guy. I won't debate you on whether ULA is loosing or winning. Like I said originally, the reason I came here was to inform everyone of the negotiation process at ULA. I gave a few opinions on SpaceX and some information I had first hand knowledge of. I will leave it to you "rocket scientists" to determine the winner and looser of the theoretical race. I am too busy building rockets.
Can't be doing that while posting here and likely while on the clock.
1. The health of ULA can impact me both professionally and personally.
2. I have insight into both ULA and Spacex
3. I use to work for Boeing
4. I have seen and know the "work ethic" of former Boeing hourly workers at the Cape.
5. I have been to Decatur and Hawthorne. I have seen whose looking to work and who is worried about their breaks.
5. There is no debate. It is only a "theoretical race", because ULA isn't in it because it is not competitive. Tally the number of commercial launches of Spacex. Each one of those is a ULA loss in the "race".
There is nothing theoretical about this nor is it an opinion. ULA has to cut costs and clean up its act or it is going to lose to Spacex and the already highly compensated represented workers can do their share by reducing contract increases.
Also some allegiance to the company vs the lodge would help. Spacex worker get behind their company.
1) I am not on the clock, I am at home answering questions about the company's proposal. Good try though
2) If you used to work for Boeing you must enjoy(or will soon) your pension, one we would like to keep.
3) I can't speak for the Cape but I can speak for Decatur and your comment is insulting, disgraceful and shows your contempt for those that actually build what everyone else dreams up. The work ethic at Decatur is outstanding as is evident in their production rates and success rates. You don't need to travel to Decatur to know that. We build every rocket that ULA launches with 400 employees. That was 14 last year alone. You don't have that kind of success by spending the day in the break room. Break down the numbers Jim, where else can 28 people build a rocket in one year?
So at this point I question your honesty and intergity.
Concerning your last statement, my allegiance is to those that fight with me, not against me. An old Scottish proverb says, "The best way to keep a man loyal is to keep money in his purse." There is a lot of truth in that statement.
That is my final reply to you my friend.
Hope we will see more of you around, hey most of my posts get deleted cause I call it like I see it. Some food for thought:
1) The insurance money is gone. That headline probably got your attention and it should. Fact "mission assurance" money is gone and those were the funds that the US government gave as insurance. These funds insured your jobs when things got slow, or need to speed up with overtime.
Your a smart guy watch the videos before congress.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37029.0Go take a serious look at what happened to Rocketdyne, and their future because its like looking in a mirror.
1) Company sold to Aerojet (no money to be made in the mfg of rocket engines).
2) Loss of Engine sales to Orbital
3) End announced to the Delta's IV engine orders, and not not sure if the Atlas engine ever got settled but that as you know is gone.
4) RL-10 Production gone for some time, ULA replacement possible
How would you like to be working for that firm?
My interests are in advanced manufacturing and I've seen the videos of the ULA plant. I seriously know what I could walk in the door and do, and approximately how many people it would take to do the job. You don't want to even know. Frankly, ULA management doesn't understand it yet and the competition doesn't either.
The first generation of Engineers that start to come out of school this summer live, and breathe it. I know of an engineering student (early20's) proficient in 3D Printers didn't even have to finish his schooling. See everyone in the plant was in their 50's and the company wanted to survive against new competition. See 3D printers use Gcode he could program or operate just about anything in the shop. He also was very proficient in electronics, and CAD.
My advice is to do your homework.
-
#47
by
Zero_V
on 02 May, 2015 03:40
-
ULA employee here also. I really have to disagree with you, LocalLodge44, respectfully. This is my opinion: The company has been talking about competing with SpaceX ever since Bruno took over, and even a little before that. Heck, the ULA intranet homepage has been talking about trying to make Vulcan price-competitive, specifically to compete with SpaceX, for months now. It's no longer a nicety, it's a necessity.
Many of us have mocked the way SpaceX does things and we have questioned whether they'll be successful, but I think we had quite a few years of us banking on them failing. Where has that strategy gotten us? The bottom line is, they are just on the cusp of launching the same payloads we do, for much cheaper.
I think Mr. Bruno is quite aware that if we can't compete in some level with SpaceX, there's not much of a future for our company. I think all of ULA should be aware of that as well.
In our very customer's words, "Anyone who has bet on SpaceX to fail has been proven wrong."
We can also argue that the price of the rocket will only be affected by a fraction of the cost by changing the current benefits. It's true. But - if we had an easy way of taking off a large portion of the cost of the rocket, would not we have done so already? We won't get to a competitive price by one big ticket item to better rockets - it has to be done incrementally in small pieces that add up to a large cost savings. Labor pensions are a significant part of it.
I've worked at Decatur full-time before. Everyone there is very proud to do what they do. And they do it well. I've found in general that employees of ULA are very passionate about what they do, but their age and scar tissue from past failures has left us reluctant to change. But, now we have to, or die, and it's time to ask what we can do for the company and not the other way around.
It sucks, and believe me, where I'm working now is not at the best of times also, but we have to do what we have to do.
I also hope you realize the benefits for Union workers are currently much better than for non-rep employees.
Sorry. Longtime lurker, felt compelled to rant because I disagreed with someone on the internet like in that one XKCD comic.
-
#48
by
QuantumG
on 02 May, 2015 03:48
-
Welcome to the forum!
-
#49
by
LocalLodge44
on 02 May, 2015 17:58
-
I appreciate the kind words from several of you. As I said previously, I am not here to communicate about SpaceX v. ULA and honestly have no concern about it as is evident in my previous posts. My main intent was to ensure that misinformation wasn't being posted here in an effort to discredit the workers of ULA. Other than that, I have no intent nor goal here. I especially have no reason to discuss SpaceX v. ULA. Do I have "skin in the game"? Of course, but I am merely a hired gun. I came to ULA from my previous employer for the pension ULA offered, as did many. I didn't work in the aerospace industry prior and probably will not in the future, barring us being able to retain our pensions after a strike is called tomorrow. At the point my current employer offers less than a prospective employer, our mutual agreement will end and I will move on. Not unlike what many in management have done the past few years.
I am of the opinion that is ULA's goal. To drive out well compensated, highly skilled people in an effort to replace them with cheap labor. This doesn't just span the labor division, although that is my only concern, I have watched many of the most knowledgeable engineers I have ever had the pleasure to work with flee ULA the past few years because of the cuts. I mince no words that we are fairly compensated for the work we do or I wouldn't be at ULA but I will not work for less while I see CEO and Board Member salaries increase. We are all of the opinion, if wage, pension and health cuts are needed then they will lead by example. After all, that is what leaders do isn't it? Lead by example. I am not speaking of floor level management/engineering either. Those poor folks are just the pawns in the game. They take the cuts from the top and the complaints from the bottom. I actually feel empathy for most all of them as I do not believe those jobs panned out to what they thought they would be.
I thought about my statement yesterday, about the theoretical race. I suppose upon further consideration I may have been wrong. ULA v. SpaceX may be in a race. From our perspective it appears to be a race to the bottom. I didn't come to work at ULA to watch the Walmart philosophy be implemented. If they want to drive down prices on the backs of the working men and women then they will be doing it without me and many others.
That all may sound harsh and self centered but that is capitalism at its finest. What the company's need to remember is capitalism works both ways. There may be some company's that exploit weakness in labor for lower wages but those of us that are highly skilled will exploit the weakness in skill and ability for higher wages.
-
#50
by
Jim
on 02 May, 2015 18:07
-
I appreciate the kind words from several of you. As I said previously, I am not here to communicate about SpaceX v. ULA and honestly have no concern about it as is evident in my previous posts. My main intent was to ensure that misinformation wasn't being posted here in an effort to discredit the workers of ULA. Other than that, I have no intent nor goal here. I especially have no reason to discuss SpaceX v. ULA. Do I have "skin in the game"? Of course, but I am merely a hired gun. I came to ULA from my previous employer for the pension ULA offered, as did many. I didn't work in the aerospace industry prior and probably will not in the future, barring us being able to retain our pensions after a strike is called tomorrow. At the point my current employer offers less than a prospective employer, our mutual agreement will end and I will move on. Not unlike what many in management have done the past few years.
I am of the opinion that is ULA's goal. To drive out well compensated, highly skilled people in an effort to replace them with cheap labor. This doesn't just span the labor division, although that is my only concern, I have watched many of the most knowledgeable engineers I have ever had the pleasure to work with flee ULA the past few years because of the cuts. I mince no words that we are fairly compensated for the work we do or I wouldn't be at ULA but I will not work for less while I see CEO and Board Member salaries increase. We are all of the opinion, if wage, pension and health cuts are needed then they will lead by example. After all, that is what leaders do isn't it? Lead by example. I am not speaking of floor level management/engineering either. Those poor folks are just the pawns in the game. They take the cuts from the top and the complaints from the bottom. I actually feel empathy for most all of them as I do not believe those jobs panned out to what they thought they would be.
I thought about my statement yesterday, about the theoretical race. I suppose upon further consideration I may have been wrong. ULA v. SpaceX may be in a race. From our perspective it appears to be a race to the bottom. I didn't come to work at ULA to watch the Walmart philosophy be implemented. If they want to drive down prices on the backs of the working men and women then they will be doing it without me and many others.
That all may sound harsh and self centered but that is capitalism at its finest. What the company's need to remember is capitalism works both ways. There may be some company's that exploit weakness in labor for lower wages but those of us that are highly skilled will exploit the weakness in skill and ability for higher wages.
That is the issue. Spacex is hiring workers who want to be in the field and work to common goals. Compensation is secondary. Spacex doesn't want hired guns, it wants people passionate about the job (it is that allegiance thing again) and the goals. If you don't want to be in aerospace then go elsewhere. It is calling for most of us.
And we do want the Walmart vs the Neiman Marcus philosophy so that we can really move into space.
As for CEO and Board Member salaries, who cares? A reduction isn't going affect cost. Why do unions care about what CEO and Board Member salaries make, most floor level management/engineering don't. I care about what others at my level make and not the ones above me.
-
#51
by
LocalLodge44
on 02 May, 2015 18:36
-
We can also argue that the price of the rocket will only be affected by a fraction of the cost by changing the current benefits. It's true. But - if we had an easy way of taking off a large portion of the cost of the rocket, would not we have done so already? We won't get to a competitive price by one big ticket item to better rockets - it has to be done incrementally in small pieces that add up to a large cost savings. Labor pensions are a significant part of it.
ZeroV, can you explain the numbers to me exactly. I can assume we are dealing with very intelligent people here as most interested in space exploration are fairly astute in mathematics.
For one, your statement, "if we had an easy way of taking off a large portion of the cost of the rocket, would not we have done so " I tend to agree with you but not wholly. ULA is cutting where it hurts them the least. There are many ways costs could be reduced in much greater numbers than pension. One would be relocating CO to AL so much of the production team wouldn't be sitting there for several hours every morning waiting on support from engineering. How many hours is lost on wait times and communications? Another would be, how about we upgrade manufacturing technology that was originally designed in the 1970s to the 21st century. I have worked in many facilities in my life but I have never seen so many archaic ways of manufacturing. I came out of the automotive industry where "lean manufacturing" was taught. This isn't a new concept but ULA has yet to catch on. Another would be, how many hours a day are spent by production members re-certifying? I myself carry over 100 certifications and never touch flight hardware. I waste on average 4 hours a week in front of a PC, learning how to do something I have done for the past 10 years. So I would argue that yes, there are hundreds of ways to decrease costs AND increase production that ULA hasn't even touched on. It just so happens, the pension is what the mother companies want them to go after so that is what they are doing. IF you don't believe me, ask Tony Bruno. He spoke at Decatur just a few weeks ago and he specifically stated that it was Boeing and Lockheed that wanted ULA to go after the pensions. Maybe it was his way of passing the buck but you know what, I believe him!
Back to your statement about labor pensions being a large part of it. I want to run some numbers by you and see if you still feel the same way. According to our analysis, pension costs for the average represented ULA employee comes in a $2.11 per hour. That is the actual costs to ULA and those hours are irrelevant of overtime because all benefit costs are based on a 40 hour week. We could actually drive them down if I included OT but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume every represented employee works 40 hours per week.
So, (((40*2.11)52)900)= $3,949,920
When you extrapolate that over 14 launches last year you get a total costs savings of $282,137.14 per rocket! Now I don't know what your idea of "significant part of it" is but I can tell you, when ULA is trying to cut costs by 150 million per rocket, I don't look at 300k as a significant part of it. It is a drop in the bucket my friend and anyone that tells you different is blowing smoke up your posterior.
-
#52
by
Jim
on 02 May, 2015 18:43
-
When you extrapolate that over 14 launches last year you get a total costs savings of $282,137.14 per rocket! Now I don't know what your idea of "significant part of it" is but I can tell you, when ULA is trying to cut costs by 150 million per rocket, I don't look at 300k as a significant part of it. It is a drop in the bucket my friend and anyone that tells you different is blowing smoke up your posterior.
No, that is just the union's share. The salaried people are going to take cuts.
Also, the 14 launches is just a bogus number, that is not the average per year.
-
#53
by
Space Ghost 1962
on 02 May, 2015 21:01
-
Industry goes through cycles. Following Shuttle's development, the LV consolidation that resulted in EELV ejected many from the industry, like myself (first time). We were going to focus narrowly on a professional, well-funded effort that would only go after six sigma achievements. Forget the nonsense fantasies of reuse, exoticism, whiz bang ideas that would only cost time/budget.
Just refine what we knew best, how we manufactured best. Everything/everyone else, take a hike!
ULA employee here also. I really have to disagree with you, LocalLodge44, respectfully. This is my opinion: The company has been talking about competing with SpaceX ever since Bruno took over, and even a little before that. Heck, the ULA intranet homepage has been talking about trying to make Vulcan price-competitive, specifically to compete with SpaceX, for months now. It's no longer a nicety, it's a necessity.
Step further. "Its survival."
I simply stated an opinion that I believe SpaceX is of no threat to ULA. We work at ULA..
That is the problem right there and why ULA is losing.
Restated -
if anyone at ULA believes "SpaceX is of no threat to ULA", ULA loses.Mind you, at SpaceX, does anyone doubt ULA is a threat to them?
Many of us have mocked the way SpaceX does things and we have questioned whether they'll be successful, but I think we had quite a few years of us banking on them failing. Where has that strategy gotten us? The bottom line is, they are just on the cusp of launching the same payloads we do, for much cheaper.
I think Mr. Bruno is quite aware that if we can't compete in some level with SpaceX, there's not much of a future for our company. I think all of ULA should be aware of that as well.
In our very customer's words, "Anyone who has bet on SpaceX to fail has been proven wrong."
Exactly.
We can also argue that the price of the rocket will only be affected by a fraction of the cost by changing the current benefits. It's true. But - if we had an easy way of taking off a large portion of the cost of the rocket, would not we have done so already? We won't get to a competitive price by one big ticket item to better rockets - it has to be done incrementally in small pieces that add up to a large cost savings. Labor pensions are a significant part of it.
If it was a few hourly workers (e.g. inconsequential), this issue/topic wouldn't even be here for any provider.
It really wasn't an issue post Shuttle development. Industry changed. Now it is. Happened also to USA with Shuttle program conclusion. And it will happen again in the future.
I've worked at Decatur full-time before. Everyone there is very proud to do what they do. And they do it well. I've found in general that employees of ULA are very passionate about what they do, but their age and scar tissue from past failures has left us reluctant to change. But, now we have to, or die, and it's time to ask what we can do for the company and not the other way around.
It sucks, and believe me, where I'm working now is not at the best of times also, but we have to do what we have to do.
Working in this area is hard and unforgiving. I know - started as a tech and worked hovering over machinists at the time. What I did then required extreme engineering/science/math, shot me off in that direction.
You have to be passionate to put up with this, because its so hard.
But part of the "hard" is what the industry allows. During/before Shuttle development - wilder era. After than - very "buttoned down"/consolidated. Post EELV - expansionist/dynamic/restructuring.
My main intent was to ensure that misinformation wasn't being posted here in an effort to discredit the workers of ULA. Other than that, I have no intent nor goal here. I especially have no reason to discuss SpaceX v. ULA. Do I have "skin in the game"? Of course, but I am merely a hired gun.
Fine, voice of the union being heard. Got it. Hired gun's are market priced. I do that myself for the financial guys a few times a year. Because something like five people in America have that specific skill/experience. And it's used rarely.
The price/availability for it changes all the time. I came to ULA from my previous employer for the pension ULA offered, as did many. I didn't work in the aerospace industry prior and probably will not in the future, barring us being able to retain our pensions after a strike is called tomorrow. At the point my current employer offers less than a prospective employer, our mutual agreement will end and I will move on. Not unlike what many in management have done the past few years.
Understandable. Your best industry choice FWIW is aviation BTW - availability/price best.
I am of the opinion that is ULA's goal. To drive out well compensated, highly skilled people in an effort to replace them with cheap labor. This doesn't just span the labor division, although that is my only concern, I have watched many of the most knowledgeable engineers I have ever had the pleasure to work with flee ULA the past few years because of the cuts.
Frankly don't know motivations like you do. But one might guess that all vendors, services, etc will get hit, to get as much as they think they can get. They'd attempt to match their rival as good or better. Fairness isn't what they'd be shooting for.
I mince no words that we are fairly compensated for the work we do or I wouldn't be at ULA but I will not work for less while I see CEO and Board Member salaries increase. We are all of the opinion, if wage, pension and health cuts are needed then they will lead by example. After all, that is what leaders do isn't it? Lead by example.
Your best case here is to look at SpaceX examples and demand they do similar elsewhere cuts - that will win. Your advantage in hourly is that ULA can't attract SX workforce - where they can't do similar. They have no choice but to pay for that. But eventually that game will go away to as they get smarter about it. Culture thing.
Now - about strikes. Really hard to imagine SX strikes. How would that work? Hmm.
How does a strike change things? Well, for one, SX gets more advantage. ULA slows down and costs increase. If I were Boeing/LockMart, I'd think less about funding Vulcan, and start planning for a "fall back" plan to some other launcher(s). Doesn't matter "fairness" - that's just all that's likely to happen. And that's again "hard".
I am not speaking of floor level management/engineering either. Those poor folks are just the pawns in the game. They take the cuts from the top and the complaints from the bottom. I actually feel empathy for most all of them as I do not believe those jobs panned out to what they thought they would be.
I also have empathy for the burnouts at SpaceX I've had to deal with. Most are great people, and both ULA and SX still hold on some real stinkers too, I've empathy for those that have to work around them to get something done.
I thought about my statement yesterday, about the theoretical race. I suppose upon further consideration I may have been wrong. ULA v. SpaceX may be in a race. From our perspective it appears to be a race to the bottom. I didn't come to work at ULA to watch the Walmart philosophy be implemented. If they want to drive down prices on the backs of the working men and women then they will be doing it without me and many others.
Sounds like Bezos and Musk to me.
That all may sound harsh and self centered but that is capitalism at its finest. What the company's need to remember is capitalism works both ways. There may be some company's that exploit weakness in labor for lower wages but those of us that are highly skilled will exploit the weakness in skill and ability for higher wages.
Yes, the market changes. What threw me out of aerospace, made your/others job possible long term. Now, some one at SX gets a chance as well, it would seem.
Perhaps SX will fail, and then the launch services market would collapse, shrink, consolidate, and go back to something not much different than before. Someone else will manufacture LV's using whatever's best at that time, and be paid at enhanced market rate for a rarefied launch services market as before. Doubt it will be the same arrangement as now though.
That is the issue. Spacex is hiring workers who want to be in the field and work to common goals. Compensation is secondary. Spacex doesn't want hired guns, it wants people passionate about the job (it is that allegiance thing again) and the goals. If you don't want to be in aerospace then go elsewhere. It is calling for most of us.
Indeed. When I ask them about it, its because they want to do something they could never do elsewhere. If they burn out, then they might consider being a "hired gun".
There are many ways costs could be reduced in much greater numbers than pension. One would be relocating CO to AL so much of the production team wouldn't be sitting there for several hours every morning waiting on support from engineering.
This is even worse for international components like RD-180 - international is 5x more.
But the reason is the same - the cost of relocation, RD-180 or resources from Colorado, increases expenses before ever bringing them down.
How many hours is lost on wait times and communications? Another would be, how about we upgrade manufacturing technology that was originally designed in the 1970s to the 21st century. I have worked in many facilities in my life but I have never seen so many archaic ways of manufacturing. I came out of the automotive industry where "lean manufacturing" was taught. This isn't a new concept but ULA has yet to catch on.
The fix for wait times / comm in PayPal (and others) early on was a scheduling mechanism on the web that ensured responsiveness.
BTW, I've complained for a decade about not using advanced manufacturing technology across the board in LV/SC manufacturing. They all "cherry pick". Even SX, although they are so far the best here (largely because they are more recent than ULA). The automobile guys always have state of the art - use them as a measure of "competitiveness". SX has many from the auto industry. To my knowledge, ULA doesn't.
That's a good point to argue.
Another would be, how many hours a day are spent by production members re-certifying? I myself carry over 100 certifications and never touch flight hardware. I waste on average 4 hours a week in front of a PC, learning how to do something I have done for the past 10 years.
SX lessens these costs as part of corporate processes ULA is behind the curve on. Hard to play catch up.
So I would argue that yes, there are hundreds of ways to decrease costs AND increase production that ULA hasn't even touched on. It just so happens, the pension is what the mother companies want them to go after so that is what they are doing. IF you don't believe me, ask Tony Bruno. He spoke at Decatur just a few weeks ago and he specifically stated that it was Boeing and Lockheed that wanted ULA to go after the pensions. Maybe it was his way of passing the buck but you know what, I believe him!
I spoke to him in person also. This would not surprise me.
It also would not surprise me if Boeing/LockMart thinks that financially Vulcan would be a bad investment because of the "loading" to support pensions that SX does not have, so the use of capital is at a disadvantage in ULA.
Should they launch through SX, they wouldn't have this as an issue. If they build LV's inhouse each, the disadvantage is the same as any other program given Boeing/LockMart, where they can play other games that they can't in ULA for cost leverage.
So if ULA is Boeing/LockMart's "SX", it has to fit that model. Otherwise ULA is less than what they can do inhouse.
Back to your statement about labor pensions being a large part of it. I want to run some numbers by you and see if you still feel the same way. According to our analysis, pension costs for the average represented ULA employee comes in a $2.11 per hour. That is the actual costs to ULA and those hours are irrelevant of overtime because all benefit costs are based on a 40 hour week. We could actually drive them down if I included OT but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume every represented employee works 40 hours per week.
So, (((40*2.11)52)900)= $3,949,920
When you extrapolate that over 14 launches last year you get a total costs savings of $282,137.14 per rocket! Now I don't know what your idea of "significant part of it" is but I can tell you, when ULA is trying to cut costs by 150 million per rocket, I don't look at 300k as a significant part of it. It is a drop in the bucket my friend and anyone that tells you different is blowing smoke up your posterior.
Redo the comparison against SX. Doesn't wash.
Arguments that are based on being similar to economics INSIDE Boeing/LockMart were fair prior to SX being the competitor. Not so after, and longer term. Suggest weaning off somehow is a better strategy. Hard.
-
#54
by
Oli
on 02 May, 2015 21:06
-
As for CEO and Board Member salaries, who cares? A reduction isn't going affect cost.
Funny how CEOs and Board Members always ask their employees to be "passionate" while raking in the money for themselves.
Take away a million from the CEO's salary and 1000 employees can be given $1000 more per year.
-
#55
by
joek
on 02 May, 2015 21:40
-
@LocalLodge44 -- Welcome to the forum, and thanks for your comments. A few questions:
1. How many ULA employees are covered by this agreement?
2. Is the pension fully funded? What is its present value?
Specifically, is this a play by LM and Boeing to "raid" the pension fund?
Thanks.
-
#56
by
kevin-rf
on 03 May, 2015 00:44
-
@LocalLodge44 -- Welcome to the forum, and thanks for your comments. A few questions:
1. How many ULA employees are covered by this agreement?
2. Is the pension fully funded? What is its present value?
Specifically, is this a play by LM and Boeing to "raid" the pension fund?
Thanks.
Up thread, 850 members at three sites.
And locallodge44, am I correct in understanding that IAM's main objections are over the healthcare and retirement changes? Not other grievances? Not about the flexibility ULA needs to compete?
If it is any condolence, On Friday I watched my wife's local rank and file reject a contract because the school district was trying to convert the health care plan from a 90/10 to an 80/20, and some minor changes to the sick bank. It was very interesting, I had someones car keys, and thus got to watch several members of the HOG blow a serious gasket in counting room as tally was done. Conversion of benefits is a pay cut, in this case a 1/2 percent cut after a two percent raise plus step. They though it was the best they could get, it clear your local's leadership stands up for the rank and file. Good for them.
I still am confused why rejection will lead to an immediate strike. No extension, no working without a contract, no back negotiating the contract. My wife's current contract has a no strike clause. Just to take ULA's side for a second. That would be item one for me.
-
#57
by
joek
on 03 May, 2015 01:39
-
Up thread, 850 members at three sites.
Seems to be some question. Jim suggested there were other sites.
-
#58
by
joek
on 03 May, 2015 01:57
-
It also would not surprise me if Boeing/LockMart thinks that financially Vulcan would be a bad investment because of the "loading" to support pensions that SX does not have, so the use of capital is at a disadvantage in ULA.
Or that LM/Boeing is simply using that as a whipping boy. AFAICT, ULA is going to have to dig a lot deeper than cutting benefits for what appears to be a minority of the workforce to compete with SoaceX.
Yes, ULA needs to find savings everywhere they can (of which this is one place), but the reason ULA is not competitive is much more fundamental--ten years on from the formation of ULA, they are simply not geared to compete.
-
#59
by
ArbitraryConstant
on 03 May, 2015 03:08
-
As long as the source of "young guns" lasts. Which is infinite because that is where the action is and there is a stream of new hires for both engineering and technical jobs.
With respect to the burnout issue, there was a
previous thread where I posted and a former SpaceX employee chimed in in agreement, to the effect that someone can get a lot of career growth out of a relatively short term of employment at SpaceX. The name is widely recognized in the field and junior people work on problems they wouldn't be able to touch at other firms; this can set the entire rest of someone's career on a higher trajectory. Studies show a large deflection early in your career like this can have a lasting impact on earnings 10+ years later.
Looking at it from the perspective of a new grad and weighing SpaceX against other choices like a less hectic job or a graduate degree I can easily see how someone would choose SpaceX even if it's only for a few years. If SpaceX has their pick of new grads from every school (they do) then they can maintain this strategy for a long time.
-
#60
by
LocalLodge44
on 03 May, 2015 03:24
-
And locallodge44, am I correct in understanding that IAM's main objections are over the healthcare and retirement changes? Not other grievances? Not about the flexibility ULA needs to compete?
If it is any condolence, On Friday I watched my wife's local rank and file reject a contract because the school district was trying to convert the health care plan from a 90/10 to an 80/20, and some minor changes to the sick bank. It was very interesting, I had someones car keys, and thus got to watch several members of the HOG blow a serious gasket in counting room as tally was done. Conversion of benefits is a pay cut, in this case a 1/2 percent cut after a two percent raise plus step. They though it was the best they could get, it clear your local's leadership stands up for the rank and file. Good for them.
I still am confused why rejection will lead to an immediate strike. No extension, no working without a contract, no back negotiating the contract. My wife's current contract has a no strike clause. Just to take ULA's side for a second. That would be item one for me.
You are partially correct. The pension is of course a large reason many came to work for ULA. I can't discuss a lot of the particulars of the contract proposal until we have a signed deal. I am sure there are ULA management watching this thread as closely as they are our local lodge website, facebook account and every other possible channel of communication. What I can tell you is there are several things that makes this contract unfavorable to the members:
1) Pension frozen
2) Increase in healthcare costs (which is expected but there is much more of a back story that would take entirely too long to discuss and would bore you to death)
3) Probably the biggest gripe that everyone has about this contract is much of the non-economic language. Since all three site's local lodges joined under one contract we have watched the launch site management bastardize the language to pieces in an attempt to gain further control of the launch sites. In reality, how the launch sites operate and how a factory operates isn't even comparable but they have put so much language about slip shifts, call in hours at all times of the night, being disciplined for not answering the telephone at our homes. It is laughable really what they have proposed. So, you have all the people at the factory up in arms about all of this that doesn't really apply to them but in a sense does because we fall under the same contract. Does Decatur ever intend to use the language? Beats me, but the problem is, it is in there for them to use.
Lastly, to answer your question about extensions and such. That is always a possibility but I think a very slim one. We know what is on the pads, we know what is in the factory awaiting delivery. Our leverage is in the fact that ULA's manifest is so packed right now and for the foreseeable future. We are willing to go back to the table and negotiate right now if they wanted but they have rolled the dice and are hoping to buy the contract vote with a $6k signing bonus. They did the same thing on the last contract when they froze new hires out of the pension and won the contract by 5 votes across all sites. This time it is a little more personal and I highly doubt they have thrown enough bribe money in to the signing bonus to get people to bite.
So, if the contract proposal is vote down AND 66 and 2/3 employees vote to strike we will walk the picket line until a new contract is accepted. It will be up to ULA to determine if/when they want to negotiate. Regardless, there will be a strike until a new contract is offered, voted on and accepted.
It also would not surprise me if Boeing/LockMart thinks that financially Vulcan would be a bad investment because of the "loading" to support pensions that SX does not have, so the use of capital is at a disadvantage in ULA.
Or that LM/Boeing is simply using that as a whipping boy. AFAICT, ULA is going to have to dig a lot deeper than cutting benefits for what appears to be a minority of the workforce to compete with SoaceX.
Yes, ULA needs to find savings everywhere they can (of which this is one place), but the reason ULA is not competitive is much more fundamental--ten years on from the formation of ULA, they are simply not geared to compete.
You sir, are absolutely correct. I am of the opinion, and this is just my personal opinion not one of the collective members, that ULA is using SX as a paper tiger to get concessions out of their employees. Do they need to compete, absolutely if it is their intent to continue doing business. To me, the more important question is, does Lockheed and Boeing truly want to compete or do they just want to drain the cash cow dry and throw it to the side when it is empty? ULA was formed not because they wanted to but because the government asked them to. Right now it is a very lucrative business. When it ceases to be lucrative, my guess is it will cease to be a business. So much for those that think this industry is a "calling".
-
#61
by
AncientU
on 03 May, 2015 13:43
-
The collective membership should be alerted to the fact that the purported paper tiger is stalking that same cash cow. Half of your collective jobs are de facto gone already; Union leadership should be scrambling to protect the remaining half, not dissembling as to the reality of the situation. The threat is real -- deal with it.
-
#62
by
joek
on 03 May, 2015 17:49
-
The collective membership should be alerted to the fact that the purported paper tiger is stalking that same cash cow. Half of your collective jobs are de facto gone already; Union leadership should be scrambling to protect the remaining half, not dissembling as to the reality of the situation. The threat is real -- deal with it.
Whether half of those jobs are "de facto gone" is far from clear. How many of those jobs are related to ELC, which is a significant future risk? Unknown (any data?). Last projection showed ~1900 ULA FTE's dedicated to ELC, which appear to make up the majority of ULA's workforce and costs for DoD-related business.
Yes, the threat is real. But maybe ULA would be better served by first addressing more fundamental and structural issues. Mr. Bruno has indicated that there will be a restructuring of ULA in order to better compete. That restructuring, and getting the workforce behind it and involved in it, should be the priority IMHO.
While I suppose ULA management (or maybe Boeing and LM) decided they had to start somewhere, putting this union issue early in the game seems to be putting the cart before the horse.
-
#63
by
AncientU
on 03 May, 2015 18:31
-
Three years from now is too late.
My opinion only, of course.
If anyone truly believes 'business as usual' until 2018, they are in denial. Leadership of Mr. Gass (excuse me for the loose usage) set this course by ignoring the rising costs and risk of reliance on RD-180... and the threat of being significantly undercut on price and performance (FH will deliver double the payload at one third the cost of DH), so I'm not surprised the workforce is just waking up to the reality. Being dependent on legislative reprieves to 'save' the company is a crap situation -- only hard work on all fronts will pull this one out.
The next three years will see major cuts being implemented to prepare to compete the next 28 core block buy. This is where Union leadership should be trying to soften the blow to membership, not keeping the foot on accelerator when heading over a cliff. I am missing the discussion about modernizing methods, improving productivity, incentivizing flexibility, bringing sub-contracted work in house, etc.
-
#64
by
rbarry55
on 03 May, 2015 18:42
-
The question I have for you is why your union intends on striking? SpaceX will never go on strike. Blue Origin in a few years will be a peer competitor to ULA and Blue Origin will never go on strike. Customers know strikers wont delay commercial or national security payloads at those two startups.
SpaceX is beating ULA on price and knows how to play the DC beltway lobbying game as the RD-180 ban demonstrates. SpaceX has driven Ariane to phase out the now uncompetitive Ariane 5 in favor of a hoped for cheaper version just as ULA is being forced to do. You referred to SpaceX as a 'paper tiger'. Some paper, some tiger.
So why do you want to give prospective customers of ULA one more reason to do business with the competition? I ask this respectfully and believe you probably have grievances worth negotiating.
-
#65
by
AncientU
on 03 May, 2015 18:56
-
A strike when ULA/Boeing/LM are furiously seeking a legislative reprieve cannot help the cause. Everyone knows that ULA has been too fat for too long... allowing additional RD-180s to be used and ELC to stand unchanged (by a Republican Congress whose platform is anti-Union and anti-Russian at best) is not guaranteed. A strike makes it even less so.
-
#66
by
joek
on 03 May, 2015 19:26
-
A strike when ULA/Boeing/LM are furiously seeking a legislative reprieve cannot help the cause. Everyone knows that ULA has been too fat for too long... allowing additional RD-180s to be used and ELC to stand unchanged (by a Republican Congress whose platform is anti-Union and anti-Russian at best) is not guaranteed. A strike makes it even less so.
How is that? If by some magic an RD-180 replacement appeared tomorrow at no additional cost, the fundamental issues remain. Whether ELC remains in its present form appears to have less to do with these union issues, and more to do with fundamental ULA structural issues.
-
#67
by
rcoppola
on 03 May, 2015 19:42
-
A few honest questions for any (Private Sector) Union members on this forum:
Is it at all possible, that 20th century Union Leadership orthodoxy is ill equipped to properly represent the best interests of its' members, especially the newest and future ones in today's marketplace?
If ULA realized they needed new leadership (Mr. Bruno) to evolve and transform into a viable commercial launch services provider, do the members think that perhaps the same can be said of their leadership with regards to a Union evolution, transformation?
-
#68
by
AncientU
on 03 May, 2015 19:49
-
A strike when ULA/Boeing/LM are furiously seeking a legislative reprieve cannot help the cause. Everyone knows that ULA has been too fat for too long... allowing additional RD-180s to be used and ELC to stand unchanged (by a Republican Congress whose platform is anti-Union and anti-Russian at best) is not guaranteed. A strike makes it even less so.
How is that? If by some magic an RD-180 replacement appeared tomorrow at no additional cost, the fundamental issues remain. Whether ELC remains in its present form appears to have less to do with these union issues, and more to do with fundamental ULA structural issues.
Yes, probably more to do with structural issues, but
any business-as-usual news is negative at this point. If there was a serious negotiation ongoing between ULA leadership and the entire workforce (including the Union) about tough changes and restructuring -- and Union leadership was preaching change to membership, then the evolution of the business would be plausible. As it is, everybody is looking to maintain status quo. Boeing/LM lobby effort is worst example.
(Please, please, Congress, give us a break... or we'll cancel Vulcan is not a strong negotiating position. It's actually a dare or a threat.)
-
#69
by
joek
on 03 May, 2015 21:17
-
Yes, probably more to do with structural issues, but any business-as-usual news is negative at this point. If there was a serious negotiation ongoing between ULA leadership and the entire workforce (including the Union) about tough changes and restructuring -- and Union leadership was preaching change to membership, then the evolution of the business would be plausible. As it is, everybody is looking to maintain status quo. Boeing/LM lobby effort is worst example.
So who should take the lead? IMHO it should be ULA management, as they are or should be the ones responsible for sailing this ship. The changes required and preaching should come from the top down--not a side effect of a quibble with the unions.
If the union is required or expected to lead and preach such change, then you might as well admit the company is rudderless, management is incompetent, and close shop and send everyone home. I hope and expect that is not the case.
-
#70
by
AncientU
on 03 May, 2015 21:31
-
I completely agree.
-
#71
by
johnmoe
on 03 May, 2015 21:57
-
-
#72
by
kevin-rf
on 03 May, 2015 22:15
-
Wow!
-
#73
by
kevin-rf
on 03 May, 2015 22:40
-
Personally, I don't think this bodes well for IAM,
Last year Boeing pushed through similar concessions with IAM's rank and file over the union's objections so they could keep future 777x production in Washington state.
Then the failed attempt by IAM to organize the VW plant in TN last year.
Add in IAM having to call off the organization vote at Boeing SC for the second 787 production line because they did not have the votes.
And now the rank and file pass this over the union's objections.
This does not bode well for IAM, I am very surprised. If you ask me, this was a must win save face event for IAM.
-
#74
by
AncientU
on 03 May, 2015 22:41
-
Good.
-
#75
by
Prober
on 04 May, 2015 00:03
-
These number don't speak well.
-
#76
by
DDG40
on 04 May, 2015 00:22
-
Personally, I don't think this bodes well for IAM,
Last year Boeing pushed through similar concessions with IAM's rank and file over the union's objections so they could keep future 777x production in Washington state.
Then the failed attempt by IAM to organize the VW plant in TN last year.
Add in IAM having to call off the organization vote at Boeing SC for the second 787 production line because they did not have the votes.
And now the rank and file pass this over the union's objections.
This does not bode well for IAM, I am very surprised. If you ask me, this was a must win save face event for IAM.
The IAM didn't try to organize VW. The Union presented the contract to the membership for a vote, If the Union objected to the contract it would not have been recommended for a vote.
-
#77
by
LouScheffer
on 04 May, 2015 01:40
-
I wonder if employee representation on the board (as mandated in many cases in Germany) would help cases like this?
A big-picture view might help the union decide if the management demands are (a) just squeezing because they can, or (b) decreaing costs and increasing productivity in order to survive. Board representation is probably needed for this since companies always claim (b) even if the situation is (a).
Of course this depends on the board having an honest view into the companies future. In the past I was not convinced the ULA board saw this, but the recent burst of new ideas and activities has me at least a little more optimistic.
-
#78
by
kevin-rf
on 04 May, 2015 01:54
-
If 850 was accurate, that's a 84% turnout. Not bad. 379 accept, 339 reject. A 40 vote difference. 132 did not vote or handed in a blank card.
Odd, on the strike auth, looks like they only counted Decatur, though if true, one more voted on the strike vote, vs. the contract vote. A blank?
Before we say this is a total failure on IAM's part, ULA clearly knew what the min they needed to give the rank and file was for acceptance. They offered the min while ignoring the Union. Oppinion, but without IAM, they would have most likely offered even less.
-
#79
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 04 May, 2015 03:28
-
As about 65% of the Decatur votes rejected the deal, and two thirds were prepared to strike, might the result lead to a higher rate of staff moving on? Or is the renumeration package still good by aerospace standards? (Ie not many opportunities for better elsewhere)
Edit: fixed autocorrect typo
-
#80
by
Prober
on 04 May, 2015 12:17
-
As about 65% of the Decatur votes rejected the deal, and two thirds were prepared to strike, might the result lead to a higher rate of staff moving on?
Yep, your seeing the problems. It's clear a majority didn't get the memo they have to learn to live within "competition" now.
Their competition runs on a culture that if you don't get along your swiftly moved out.
More interesting is the Cape vote; more questions there than answers. Do they see it, and understand the problems, or was the vote a fluke? Vandenberg doesn't have the launch rates the cape does. Is that reflected in the vote? So what's the factor here?
-
#81
by
kevin-rf
on 04 May, 2015 12:30
-
More interesting is the Cape vote; more questions there than answers. Do they see it, and understand the problems, or was the vote a fluke? Vandenberg doesn't have the launch rates the cape does. Is that reflected in the vote? So what's the factor here?
I think locallodge44 hit the nail on the head here. It had language about mandatory overtime and call ups that really only applied to the pads. They gave the pad workers something. The only bearing on Decatur was it further aggravated them, which (with the real issues of pension and healthcare) must have contributed to the rejection by local 44 at Decatur.
-
#82
by
rayleighscatter
on 04 May, 2015 13:39
-
So who should take the lead? IMHO it should be ULA management, as they are or should be the ones responsible for sailing this ship. The changes required and preaching should come from the top down--not a side effect of a quibble with the unions.
If the union is required or expected to lead and preach such change, then you might as well admit the company is rudderless, management is incompetent, and close shop and send everyone home. I hope and expect that is not the case.
Companies can't sidestep their unions and take labor relations straight to the employees without ending up in front of the NLRB.
-
#83
by
spacenut
on 04 May, 2015 16:16
-
I not quite sure I understand what just happened. Is this going to help or hurt Vulcan? Is it going to help or hurt ULA in their competition with SpaceX?
-
#84
by
rcoppola
on 04 May, 2015 16:35
-
I not quite sure I understand what just happened. Is this going to help or hurt Vulcan? Is it going to help or hurt ULA in their competition with SpaceX?
From a ULA perspective it's very helpful. Lowers long-term pension and healthcare costs and increases workforce flexibility in how they deal with call-ups, overtime, Part-Time Vs. Full-time and subcontractor flexibilities.
It's one important step among many others to begin transitioning into a leaner more efficient launch service provider that will be able to better compete as SpaceX becomes certified and ESA and Russia go through their launcher and infrastructure transitions.
They needed to deal with their workforce now as they begin to consolidate pads, reduce product lines and eventually operate a single launcher with new manufacturing and processes. So this is one step among many.
And if ULA does succeed over the next years with their master plan, they could increase their manifest and need to hire more people. And round and round she goes...
-
#85
by
russianhalo117
on 04 May, 2015 17:56
-
-
#86
by
sdsds
on 05 May, 2015 07:40
-
United Launch Alliance Union Workers Vote To Ratify ContractUnion leaders said in a letter to members, "The contract offer fell short of our expectations and what we wanted to bring back to our members. Therefore, your negotiating committee decided unanimously that we cannot recommend this contract."
(From Noozhawk: "The freshest news in Santa Barbara.")
-
#87
by
Llian Rhydderch
on 09 May, 2015 18:44
-
These number don't speak well.
IAM Local 2786
CONTRACT VOTE RESULT:
66 accept, and 55 reject at Vandenberg
Cape is 177 accept 37 reject
Decatur is
136 accept 247 reject
257 to strike 127 not to strike
53% accepted
So the bottom line is
53% ratified
I do not know the motivations of the various individuals who voted. And I do understand that "correlation is not causation" ...
However, it is notable to me that those who rub shoulders the most with SpaceXers, and with those who work with SpaceXers, are at the Cape, and to a lesser extent, Vandenberg. Quite logically, it is those workers who are likely to be most knowledgeable about their competition in terms of "the other" company's pad workers, work culture, etc. And both of those groups ratified the contract proposal, while Decatur did not.
I am in no way saying that this is a primary factor, as there are no doubt myriad other factors that informed people might offer, and that would also be influential in the complex world of work environment, union contracts, etc.
I am however saying that I think first-hand knowledge of your competitor's competitiveness may be one factor that perhaps influenced the contract vote. These people are quite likely to better understand how much the status quo needs to change.
-
#88
by
joek
on 09 May, 2015 19:02
-
Companies can't sidestep their unions and take labor relations straight to the employees without ending up in front of the NLRB.
Not suggesting that. Suggesting that the strategic plan to restructure ULA to be more competitive, as Mr. Bruno has said is in the works, should be front and center. That is the horse that should be leading this cart.
-
#89
by
sdsds
on 09 May, 2015 19:24
-
I do understand that "correlation is not causation" ...
However, it is notable to me that those who rub shoulders the most with SpaceXers [...] ratified the contract proposal, while Decatur did not. [...] I think first-hand knowledge of your competitor's competitiveness may be one factor that perhaps influenced the contract vote.
I agree that's a factor to wonder about. Another is Decatur's proximity to MSFC in Huntsville. There might be a community there with whom the Decatur work force "rubs shoulders," who are also somewhat in denial about the realities of competition.
-
#90
by
TrevorMonty
on 14 May, 2015 17:45
-
