-
#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.