
Boeing to lay off hundreds more engineers - yitchelle
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-layoffs-idUSKBN17J1BI
======
madengr
Hell, my company encouraged retirement by promising medical coverage, then one
year later pulled the coverage on those who took the deal.

~~~
SamUK96
That's actually evil...

I find that the withdrawing of medical programs by a company is a pretty
reliable indicator that it'll fold in a few years, since it's a common "exit-
strategy" to earn a few last bucks before the up-top rats jump ship.

Been at two companies who were thriving, and both after only a few months
stopped their medical insurance. After that, _dozens_ of people left over 1-2
years, and the company was massively haemorrhaging money due to customer
dissatisfaction.

False economy.

~~~
madengr
Hell, a guy a fence with had surgery, then came to find out he had no health
insurance as the company stopped paying the premiums and was POCKETING them,
including his contribution. Several years later he finally recovered some of
the medical costs in a lawsuit.

------
buster
So, the number of employees get's less every year[1] but the market value
rises every year[2]. I'm wondering if the wealth distribution, or whatever you
all it, is working right, here..

[1] [https://www.statista.com/statistics/268992/change-in-
employm...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/268992/change-in-employment-
figures-from-boeing/) [2]
[https://www.google.com/finance?q=Boeing&ei=uQf3WOngDM7GsAGJ9...](https://www.google.com/finance?q=Boeing&ei=uQf3WOngDM7GsAGJ9Li4Aw)

~~~
Ntrails
I'm not sure why you're conflating share price and number of employees with
wealth distribution? (not to mention it looks from a casual glance as though
it's been largely flat 2014-2017)

In many ways you'd _expect_ a company that dropped a lot of employees to
improve it's profitability due to reducing costs, and if it's more profitable
it ought to be worth more right? Obviously it's a trade off, ie no R&D means
no new products means it's going to run out of things to sell eventually and
that should reduce expected future cashflows and thus value etc etc.

~~~
buster
Yes, just a casual glance. I usually don't really care about that. But from my
point of view the share price says over a long period of time "this company is
doing fine". The share price has been on a rise since many years. So, when the
company is doing "fine" according to market (and everyone who did nothing
except buying stocks wins money!), how is it that the employees get screwed?
That's how the market works, yes. But i don't have to be ok with it. Actually,
all that stock exchange, share price, money-believing, self-regulating
capitalism bullsh*t is just fundamentally screwed, in my opinion.

~~~
Ntrails
> So, when the company is doing "fine" according to market (and everyone who
> did nothing except buying stocks wins money!), how is it that the employees
> get screwed?

You mean that the people who paid for the company to produce widgets profit
when the widgets are profitable? Not the people who designed the widgets?

Thing is, if the widgets fail and the company goes bust the shareholders lose
their investment. If it does well, they'll make money. They aren't "doing
nothing except buying stocks" \- they're risking their investment.

If the company was funded by debt instead of shares, then the debt would be
paid down at a fixed rate and then profits would go to the private owner. So
even without "the market" the employees don't profit by design unless the
company chooses that as an incentive system.

If, however, the company was owned by the workers then they would indeed
profit from the widgets and suffer from the failure. Such companies do in fact
exist. But they will still lay off staff when it's sensible to do so, and that
may well increase profits which are distributed amongst those remaining.

~~~
smokeyj
I wonder if economic illiteracy leads to a disdain for capitalism or the other
way around.

------
pasbesoin
IIRC, the Washington workers are union while the South Carolina workers are
not? (Though I don't know about the specific roles/titles involved in this
round. But the article raises the open question about S.C. jobs.)

Also, I wonder whether and how much of this work is moving overseas.

P.S. Quick google reveals:

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/02/15/these...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/02/15/these-
workers-want-a-union-deep-in-trump-country-they-just-might-have-a-chance/)

[http://www.engineering.com/AdvancedManufacturing/ArticleID/1...](http://www.engineering.com/AdvancedManufacturing/ArticleID/14348/Machinists-
Union-to-Trump-Bring-Boeing-Jobs-Home.aspx)

[http://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-
aerospace/boeing...](http://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-
aerospace/boeing-agrees-to-open-737-center-in-china-inks-300-new-jet-orders/)

The last two are talking about fit, finishing, and parts, and they cite the
machinists' union. One might call that a bit apples versus oranges with
respect to the OP. Nonetheless, at the time there was language (PR and
corporate-speak) about no jobs leaving Everett and potential increased demand
increasing headcount there.

~~~
kcorbitt
I have a friend who's a long-time engineer at Boeing (in Washington). He'd
always complain that union rules were strict to the point of ludicrousness,
eg. if he got a new desktop computer he was prohibited from plugging it in
himself; he had to file a ticket and get it plugged in by a member of whatever
union had staked a claim to that task.

Not really related to the article, but yeah, I can't imagine that level of
union-driven bureaucracy is good for productivity.

~~~
jamroom
This isn't union - this is just how huge corporations work. I worked for
Verizon and they did the same thing - everything was locked down and you had
to file a Remedy ticket to get anything done (ugh).

~~~
kcorbitt
I don't know... I work for a (non-unionized) company about half the size of
Boeing, and we don't have anywhere near that level of bureaucracy, so I have a
hard time accepting the premise that "that's just how things have to be." I'm
sure there are a lot of contributing factors, but I don't have a hard time
imagining unions contributing to process creep by mandating the allocation of
tasks in a non-optimal way.

I'm no hardcore anti-unionist, but this particular situation seems like a very
plausible late-stage union failure mode.

~~~
drewrv
But your company is smaller. I work for a company smaller still and the amount
of dumb bureaucracy is even less than yours probably.

Also, culturally the aerospace industry is very rule and procedure heavy, for
good reason.

~~~
flukus
I've seen it in big and small (10 people companies), it just depends on having
someone in HR that cares about shit like this and the authority to do
something about it.

Sometimes you can't change a light bulb at a small company, sometimes at a big
one you're first job is to assembly you're own desk.

------
nickhalfasleep
No doubt they will also move more work to their Moscow Design Center:
[https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-
spreads-77...](https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-
spreads-777x-design-work-to-charleston-mosco-392371/)

~~~
KKKKkkkk1
Given the troubles that the Russian aerospace industry has with fake diplomas,
I doubt that Moscow is where they are moving those jobs.

[https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/fake-diplomas-fake-
moder...](https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/fake-diplomas-fake-
modernization-1118)

~~~
thriftwy
Linking technicans' vocational school diploma troubles in Komsomolsk-on-Amur
and aerospace engineers hiring in Moscow is a bit of a stretch, isn't it?

It's like linking Facebook performance to Obamacare website launch troubles.

------
hn_throwaway_99
Man, I really feel for these workers. When, say, a back end Java developer
gets laid off, it's usually not too hard to land on your feet, given the tons
of companies that need these skills. If you're an experience aerospace
engineer working on large commerical jets, where else do you go in the US
besides Boeing and maybe Lockheed Martin?

~~~
metaphor
>> If you're an experience aerospace engineer working on large commerical
jets, where else do you go in the US besides Boeing and maybe Lockheed Martin?

You're kidding[1], right? Beyond the aerospace industry, I can think of more
than a few places where the skillset of a talented aerospace engineer would be
very much desireable.

[1] [https://www.artillerymarketing.com/fs/top-100-aerospace-
comp...](https://www.artillerymarketing.com/fs/top-100-aerospace-
companies-2015)

------
metaphor
Shitcan 245 engineers...immediately posture to hire 345 more?[1]

[1] [https://jobs.boeing.com/search-
jobs/engineer](https://jobs.boeing.com/search-jobs/engineer)

~~~
cscurmudgeon
Because every engineer is the same. /s

------
tici_88
The article mentions 'increased competition'. Is Boeing facing a hard time
competing against rivals say Airbus? Are Boeing's latest planes less
competitive or is there less orders in the pipeline all across the industry,
including at Airbus? I wish the article went into more detail here, this would
have been informative.

~~~
marsRoverDev
Unfortunately, hiring for aircraft programs these days is very Bang-Bang. A350
program starts, Airbus hires thousands of contract mech engineers. A350
program winds down, those people are let go. I think that Boeing is similar.

Lay-offs do not necessarily imply 'increased competition', I think that hasn't
changed a whole lot recently. The model is just moving towards highly
contractual work with limited managerial permanent roles for the cream of the
crop.

~~~
sigstoat
> Unfortunately, hiring for aircraft programs these days is very Bang-Bang.

i'm given to understand that's pretty common across all of aerospace. get
contract, hire, finish contract, fire. it makes for an endless supply of
headlines, but isn't actually a surprise to the employees.

------
bertlequant
Product is the stock price. Cost out so executives keep bonuses. Solid tactics

~~~
okreallywtf
For a few years during the current CEO's reign, but how will the next CEO make
their mark when the CEO musical chairs game continues?

------
kingmanaz
First they came for the janitors...

[http://www.vdare.com/letters/first-they-came-for-the-
janitor...](http://www.vdare.com/letters/first-they-came-for-the-janitors)

~~~
SamUK96
My favourite bit there:

> people so willfully stupid that they will cut each other`s throats while the
> bankers drain them dry.

Divide and conquer. Proven classic.

------
pure_ambition
Who else thinks slowing sales is probably due to a supply glut from low
interest rates? I know low rates has meant its prime time to invest in capital
goods, especially expensive ones. Perhaps they've sold new planes to everyone
who wants them, and there's less and less companies interested in buying? Pure
speculation, though.

------
laughingman2
Until the people who painstakingly build the stuff are allowed to own the
results of their efforts , aka worker ownership we will see more and more of
this shit everywhere.

~~~
nickik
If worker ownership would produce superior outcomes it would prevail in the
market. But in reality all practical experience shows that it does not. The
old left excuse that workers are poor and can not start business can no longer
works.

The solution to the problems of the world has never been and will almost
certainly never be worker ownership of the means of production.

~~~
Noseshine
I don't really mind what you say (don't care about the issue), but I _do_ care
when someone very confidently extends a trend into the future, here even into
eternity, based on nothing but "it never worked before". That's just extreme
intellectual laziness, which is fine, until you start commenting and pretend
you know more than you do. There is way too little argument in your argument.

~~~
nickik
I said 'almost certainly' because after a 200 year trend that is a reasonable
thing to say. Plus we have theories of economics of the firm that analyses the
problems with these sort of organsiations.

So I feel reasonable confident saying 'almost certaint'.

~~~
Noseshine
> because after a 200 year trend that is a reasonable thing to say

I don't think you understand how history works. Don't know if this is merely
risible or sad.

------
rebootthesystem
> involuntary layoffs

> involuntary reduction

As opposed to what?

"Boss, 231 of us decided to voluntarily be let go, effective immediately.
Yeah, we know, it's a bummer. We also decided to take three months severance
pay at half salary. Hey, thanks for everything. Have a nice day!"

I sometimes wonder about what might lie behind the twisted language often used
by reporters.

~~~
RandomOpinion
Never seen one myself but it's entirely possible for a business to solicit
volunteers to be laid off [1] or take early retirement [2].

[1] e.g. [http://www.nyguild.org/time-inc-news-details/items/spots-
ill...](http://www.nyguild.org/time-inc-news-details/items/spots-illustrated-
announces-layoffs.html)

[2] e.g. [http://www.wcpo.com/money/local-business-news/kroger-
offers-...](http://www.wcpo.com/money/local-business-news/kroger-offers-early-
retirement-to-2000-corporate-employees)

~~~
irishcoffee
I had a friend who worked at a company asking for people to be voluntarily
laid off. They paid for grad school, and this got said person out of owing
them years of service in repayment. Saved someone else from being laid off,
and said person was able to find a job they liked much better.

~~~
nojvek
I think that is reasonable.

"Folks our company didn't do well this year, we can only sustain X at out burn
rate. We are willing to extend Y offer until Z date for those of who are
willing to volunteer for a lay off"

Much better than firing by force.

~~~
aianus
Would this not select for firing your best workers (who aren't worried about
finding another job)?

~~~
usrusr
It does. But if you do the opposite, the layoff is likely to still inspire
those best people to start looking on their own if they did not already do so
before. And they are the ones most likely to find something and follow
through.

Layoffs often have an echo effect, where a wave of layoffs is followed by a
wave of resignations. Open offers fold that second, unpredictable wave into
the controlled first one. If the nature of your business requires a certain
amount of workforce continuity, the added predictability of an open offer can
be well worth it.

------
mikekij
Events like this highlight the fallacy that big company jobs are stable and
secure, while startup jobs are risky. I think the Expected Value of a big
company salary stream is probably slightly higher than that of a series of
startup salaries, but the difference isn't nearly as large as people fear.

------
brianbreslin
This is a byproduct of the market DESIGN in aerospace. By having a duopoly
rather than either a monopoly or wider competition, you're forcing the margins
down to near zero. This means that there is always a CLEAR replacement option
for every product made by Boeing or Airbus, and the customers (the airlines)
know it. If you had more players (embraer, gulfstream, bombardier, china?) you
could have better competition, but there are few large body jet providers in
the market. Granted this problem stems from the airplane companies own
strategy of trying to get airlines to go single model (all 737s for example)
to save on repair/maintenance.

Economic theory wise its a fascinating market issue because you have clear
view of the buyers and the incentives in the marketplace (also both big
players get huge govt subsidies).

~~~
dforrestwilson1
I think you might be underestimating the impact of slackening demand. Emerging
market airlines put in a ton of orders over the past 10 years, now we're
seeing them slash airfare prices and/or cancel orders due to continued
pressure. You can also point to state-owned/supported enterprises in the
Middle East and China which are terrible allocators of capital and have
therefore encouraged the glut. Nevermind the strategic imperative of the U.S.
and Europe to have exclusive access to a producer of worldwide transports
during times of war.

There are many examples of duopolies who do just fine. I think you are
ignoring the negative influence of ambitious countries in this industry.

~~~
okreallywtf
Just FYI there are still markets out there [1] and Boeing is going to try to
take advantage of them [2].

[1] [http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-iran-airlines-snap-
story....](http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-iran-airlines-snap-story.html)
[2] [http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-
way/2016/06/21/482955544/...](http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-
way/2016/06/21/482955544/boeing-says-it-has-agreed-to-sell-passenger-jets-to-
iranian-airline)

------
sytelus
I would have thought there would be hiring spree instead given upcoming large
spending in defense and Boeing would be in strong position to capture good
portion of it. Why this isn't the case?

~~~
devopsproject
Uncertainty. Trump seems to flip his public stance on issues after having a 10
minute conversation with someone.

------
nullnilvoid
All these jobs will be replaced by cheap Indian H-1B visa holders very soon.

------
AliAdams
As opposed to 'Boeing keeps on hundreds of staff they no longer have a need
for'?

