471–480 of 557 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would think SpaceX isn't like most large, stable companies as their primary goal is the colonization of Mars.
If you ask the PR department or look at the "About Us" section of any company, you'll find some fantastical story how they're improving humanity by earning millions doing whatever they do too.
It all makes sense when you look at basic facts. Rocket reuse became a normal occurance, probably earlier than the majority of the industry anticipated. Their competitive pricing took the market by storm, changing the equation of sending anything to space. There are less new payloads to launch in 2019, because it takes much longer to contract and build a satellite than to send it to space, and the market hasn't yet a…
Positions are made redundant, not people. Individual performance is irrelevant, if not the company needs to be taken to the cleaners at a tribunal.
My gut says this is an aggressive Muskian decimation. 1) Maybe brought on themselves: 'hey, design/build the thing, then fire those who designed it' type thing, which definitely happens. It happens to companies in a crunch, or those who just put the outcome ahead of everything else. 2) A decimation: let's use this as an opportunity to drop anyone we feel is not cutting it - and teams that we created/hired we realize…
That’s OK if you hire contractors and pay them premium contractors rates. It’s sleazy and underhanded to make people believe that job security is part of the “package” then bait-and-switch.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Read up on mercury, it’s tide locked one face to the sun, other side dark and cold. There’s dusk/sunrise zone that’s probably livable.
Mercury is 3:2 locked, it still has normal days (although they are longer than its year). The poles don't get direct sunlight though so they are frigid all the time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucky_Starr_and_the_Big_Sun_of...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
SpaceX has like 7000 employees, about twice as many as ULA (their domestic competitor). There are reasons why (Dragon, BFR, Starlink, in-house engines, higher flightrate, more in-house everything), but that's a lot of people. What I hope is we'll see new startups form out of these folk. What I'd like to see is an ESOP/co-op newspace company bent on similar goals. A lot of these employees have vested stock (or likely…
Well, Space X costs less than half than a ULA launch. I suspect that ULA spends that additional money on large sub-contracts to Boeing and Lockheed for the Delta and Atlas vehicles. This makes me think that when we add up the employees on the subcontracts the space X staffing number will be much more impressive in it's leanness. I hope they all join my company, we've got a lot of work they would find interesting. Wit…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is normal to layoff about 5% per year, you trim the one in the 20 that is the weakest and it has positive, not negative effects. Going to 10% is a bit stretch, but still workable. In the last companies I worked, if up to 20% of the people left one day it would have an immediate positive impact on the performance, less complexity to deal with and more focus to work on real stuff.
5% is insane, I would never work for a company that regularly laid off that many people. Firing under performers is one thing, but to systematically clear house is toxic. How are you supposed to build a career if one of your coworkers/friends is canned every year, so everyone is wondering what year is theirs? So people overwork themselves to make sure it doesn't happen to them. You need to show your employees safety,…
I don't understand how anyone in the world accept such social contract of being laid off anytime for arbitrary reasons. If you create a company, you take care of it and all of its members. If you have to cut expenses because the company needs to be "leaner" then you cut the salaries starting from the top executives. Eventually you fire management, because the state of the company is in part the result of their decisi…
So cut from the top down, period? Cut the people with the vision and strategy of the company, until nothing but the assemblers and forklift drivers are left? I believe in worker rights, and the ability of a person to live in relative economic security. But should a company not EVER be able to restructure when it realizes it has too many workers, or too broad a mission? Is 2 months pay and medical not a decent send-of…
The vision and strategy that lead directly to layoffs? Seems like a reasonable thing to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
5% is insane, I would never work for a company that regularly laid off that many people. Firing under performers is one thing, but to systematically clear house is toxic. How are you supposed to build a career if one of your coworkers/friends is canned every year, so everyone is wondering what year is theirs? So people overwork themselves to make sure it doesn't happen to them. You need to show your employees safety,…
I think it's less about building a career and more about accomplishing the goals of the CEO and the company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My comments had nothing to do with a minimum wage discussion, and I doubt SpaceX employs people for even near to minimum wage. This is a company that creates rather high wage jobs. It is also doing very risky things. If the USA had stricter rules about employment protection and all that came with it, Spacex would not exist at all, and the 90% of well paid employees that remain wouldn’t have gotten these jobs. The abi…
[flagged]