-
ULA Executive layoffs.."Mother's Day Massacre"
by
HIP2BSQRE
on 15 May, 2015 22:17
-
-
#1
by
ChrisWilson68
on 15 May, 2015 22:26
-
Good for ULA. They need to be willing to cut people to become lean and competitive. Too many companies spare the executive ranks when downsizing. It's good that executive jobs aren't sacred at ULA.
And this is an example of how important competition is. The article quotes Bruno as saying it was in response to "an increasingly competitive business environment".
-
#2
by
Avron
on 15 May, 2015 23:01
-
Good for ULA. They need to be willing to cut people to become lean and competitive. Too many companies spare the executive ranks when downsizing. It's good that executive jobs aren't sacred at ULA.
And this is an example of how important competition is. The article quotes Bruno as saying it was in response to "an increasingly competitive business environment".
Now Tory has been busy, wonder how this will help with engines - I guess BO is the best option in town , unless the law changes
-
#3
by
HIP2BSQRE
on 15 May, 2015 23:15
-
Does anyone know who was laid off? Does anyone have a copy of the letter? I will have to ask ULA about this on Tuesday...
-
#4
by
TrevorMonty
on 15 May, 2015 23:24
-
Layoffs were not unexpected. Tory said last year during BE4 announcement that ULA work forced would be reduced by 30-50%. Starting the layoffs with management is going to easy some of backlash that will come from the Unions when they start layoff some of union work force.
Regardless of layoff order it is still tough on the staff being laid off.
Most of the R&D engineers should be safe, as they will need them for Vulcan development.
-
#5
by
rcoppola
on 15 May, 2015 23:39
-
There's a short window of opportunity and Tory is doing his level best. Although I don't think he's going to get the kind of Congressional relief wrt the RD-180 he was hoping for. I question exactly how committed Boeing/LM is wrt levels of sustained Vulcan investments. And every launch opportunity they lose over the next few years is less profit Boeing/LM will have to re-invest back into Vulcan. I still think they'll pull it off but time is not on their side.
-
#6
by
Rocket Science
on 16 May, 2015 00:13
-
It’s never nice when someone loses their job. I wish them well and for those who will experience the same in the near future...
-
#7
by
Hauerg
on 16 May, 2015 12:58
-
Would be interested in a list of the Job Titles they did cut.
-
#8
by
Newton_V
on 16 May, 2015 14:13
-
It was about a dozen VPs and Directors. All were voluntary. (for now?)
Most are near retirement. Only 1 or maybe 2 were a surprise to people.
-
#9
by
clongton
on 16 May, 2015 15:46
-
I have mixed feelings about this event. On the one hand this is absolutely necessary, along with additional union positions being eliminated in the near future, if ULA is to be successful in its bid to actually become competitive with SpaceX. On the other hand it is a sad thing for families when a well paid employee looses their job. At least all these executives have a decent amount of time before the layoff becomes effective to make alternative plans. I hope the laid-off union employees will also have such a time period. Unfortunately, it has to be done.
I am very pleased to see ULA taking these kinds of steps. As much as I admire what SpaceX is doing, the country would not benefit from a SpaceX monopoly. I wish ULA extreme success in its reorganization efforts. I look forward to seeing a marketplace where SpaceX and ULA go head to head for launch contracts, on a truly competitive basis. I look forward to Orbital's return to the marketplace, where all three of them strongly compete with each other. I look forward to a time when American launch services are a force to be reckoned with on the global market. My very best wishes to Tory Bruno as he leads his company down this path to profitable competition.
-
#10
by
AncientU
on 19 May, 2015 14:33
-
Arianespace is on a similar path...
NBN launcher Arianespace to cut jobs and costs to fight SpaceX
“It’s quite clear there’s a very significant challenge coming from SpaceX,” he said. “Therefore things have to change … and the whole European industry is being restructured, consolidated, rationalised and streamlined.
“If you’re going to reduce costs then what does that mean? It means a reduction in jobs – SpaceX is achieving a lot with a lot fewer people than there are present in the European industry.”
http://www.baindaily.com/nbn-launcher-arianespace-to-cut-jobs-and-costs-to-fight-spacex/Mods: Not sure if this is OT for this thread -- feel free to relocate it.
-
#11
by
TrueGrit
on 19 May, 2015 16:04
-
Not unexpected... Nearly every company that has a new CEO come in from the outside in challenging circumstances ends up reorganizing the company in his image. That often means shuffling the organization with "blood being spilled" at the executive level (i.e. when Mulally took over Ford). This follows that precedent... The before said reorganization is in work but these people probably decided that they didn't want to be part of the change or didn't feel welcome. If the case it is best for ULA and Burno for these people to leave on their own.
-
#12
by
Jim
on 19 May, 2015 16:07
-
It was about a dozen VPs and Directors. All were voluntary. (for now?)
Most are near retirement. Only 1 or maybe 2 were a surprise to people.
they asked for volunteers. Nobody was singled out
-
#13
by
Wonger
on 25 May, 2015 03:23
-
So it appears the first executive layoffs were nothing more than low hanging fruit. That suggests that a second round will coming, and this time it won't be volunteers. But the jobs eliminated the second go-round should give us an idea as to Mr. Bruno's priorities.
-
#14
by
Jim
on 25 May, 2015 03:29
-
Why does it suggest a second round? Or that it is low hanging fruit?
-
#15
by
savuporo
on 25 May, 2015 03:34
-
It’s never nice when someone loses their job. I wish them well and for those who will experience the same in the near future...
Actually, it sometimes is. Getting a nice severance from a perspective-less job that one is completely done with, is actually awesome.
-
#16
by
Wonger
on 25 May, 2015 08:24
-
Why does it suggest a second round? Or that it is low hanging fruit?
To reorganize ULA, Mr. Bruno is intent on reducing the number of executives (as deduced by the request for volunteers) as well as reorganizing that particular level in the organization. Reducing numbers by asking for volunteers is the easy first step – no threat of improper termination suits, no arguments with the Board on who or why questions. There should be some reshuffling of titles and responsibilities of those remaining, but it is unlikely all the remaining executives will map neatly into his vision of ULA’s future leadership team – for instance, you would not put a finance person into a technical position. Hence there will be a second round of layoffs.
-
#17
by
Jim
on 26 May, 2015 00:14
-
There should be some reshuffling of titles and responsibilities of those remaining, but it is unlikely all the remaining executives will map neatly into his vision of ULA’s future leadership team –.
That is not a given. Maybe they accepted only the volunteers that would allow mapping of new jobs.
-
#18
by
TrueGrit
on 26 May, 2015 15:39
-
There should be some reshuffling of titles and responsibilities of those remaining, but it is unlikely all the remaining executives will map neatly into his vision of ULA’s future leadership team – for instance, you would not put a finance person into a technical position. Hence there will be a second round of layoffs.
Speculation at best... I think you're taking one leap to far. The already announced departures represent a fairly high percentage of the existing ULA upper management. There is nothing to suggest a complete replacement of the upper level of management is in the works. And to do so would make the primary customer community very nervous... Since ULA is the operator not just the hardware provider that would be seen in government circles on par with the recent blood bath at the USAF missile force.
-
#19
by
Wonger
on 26 May, 2015 20:23
-
Okay, good points from both of you.
Upon reflection maybe further executive level layoffs will not serve the long term needs. I have a son-in-law who does corporate turnarounds, and it strikes fear when he walks into a room. Everyone worries that it is their head that will roll. That’s probably the last atmosphere you want to foster in a company attempting such a difficult mission. However, I still think that the reformulated leadership team going forward will be a mixture of a subset of the executives remaining and some new executives, selected either for their particular discipline or for a fresh set of eyes. So my question is whether or not there is movement possible at the executive level between ULA and both parent companies. Can Mr. Bruno draw from a larger talent pool to build the new team and can an ULA executive who is not suited for the future ULA move to a position at Boeing or Lockheed Martin?
-
#20
by
Jim
on 26 May, 2015 23:53
-
So my question is whether or not there is movement possible at the executive level between ULA and both parent companies. Can Mr. Bruno draw from a larger talent pool to build the new team and can an ULA executive who is not suited for the future ULA move to a position at Boeing or Lockheed Martin?
Not much past the CEO, COO and CFO. There are few people left at the parent companies with the experience needed. Some of ULA operations positions are filled with people from outside LM or Boeing.
-
#21
by
Coastal Ron
on 27 May, 2015 00:20
-
Why does it suggest a second round? Or that it is low hanging fruit?
It would be highly unusual that the excess employees that they laid off were exactly the excess employees that they needed to lose.
At most what can be inferred is that they were able to shed employees that had the most time with the company, or were the closest to retirement.
I think this was just round one...
-
#22
by
Llian Rhydderch
on 27 May, 2015 00:54
-
Why does it suggest a second round? Or that it is low hanging fruit?
It would be highly unusual that the excess employees that they laid off were exactly the excess employees that they needed to lose.
At most what can be inferred is that they were able to shed employees that had the most time with the company, or were the closest to retirement.
I think this was just round one...
Agreed. Especially if it was merely a 30% reduction.
ULA likely needs two things: In my view, they
will need more than 30% smaller executive ranks to successfully move from a space-industrial-complex mentality to a private-capital-funded technology-entrepreneur-based company.
Moreover, they likely will need a considerably
different mix of execs in the remaining 70% than they have today in order to pull off
entrepreneurial competition when the government is not their
monopsonistic customer.
It should go without saying that to be a successful market-based tech company, they will need to reduce staff across the board. But a major focus ought to be execs because, for good tech companies, they'll need a lower executive-to-worker ratio overall as well.
-
#23
by
Prober
on 27 May, 2015 20:34
-
Why does it suggest a second round? Or that it is low hanging fruit?
It would be highly unusual that the excess employees that they laid off were exactly the excess employees that they needed to lose.
At most what can be inferred is that they were able to shed employees that had the most time with the company, or were the closest to retirement.
I think this was just round one...
looked to me like ULA just took out one whole layer of management. Sure ULA lost some good people, but don't believe the company will fall apart because of it.
-
#24
by
clongton
on 01 Jun, 2015 12:45
-
looked to me like ULA just took out one whole layer of management. Sure ULA lost some good people, but don't believe the company will fall apart because of it.
No, ULA didn't just take out a whole layer of management. These were all volunteers, most of them near retirement. All of these would have left soon anyway, but took the offer of an early severance. Could there be more; non-volunteers? I believe so, based on seeing this kind of downsizing many times, but there is no indication of it as of yet. Never assume based on pure opinion alone. Sometimes you're right but most of the time you're wrong.
The thread title should drop the "Mother's Day Massacre" bit. It certainly was nothing of the kind.