-
#40 by baldusi on 01 May, 2015 18:16
-
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?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.
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
-
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:
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.
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=37029.0
Go 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.QuoteWe 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.QuoteI'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.QuoteI 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.QuoteI 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.QuoteI 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".QuoteI 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.QuoteI 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.QuoteThat 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.QuoteHow 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.QuoteAnother 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.QuoteSo 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.QuoteBack 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.
