anyone else hearing about some orgs losing people in record numbers?
68 replies (most recent on top)
GRC just plain stinks. Only way to win there is for VA & Co to break the union, promise more jobs downtown and outsource all shop work to vendors. But like ML and others before him, won't have the balls to do it.
All of GRC is overhead. Management doesn't care to solve the problems because GRC is just for show. The whole thing is overhead.
@krbn GRC shop and union need to upgrade themselves in general. Or GRC needs to move to SC. Or something. Charging 10 times of what I could order from Amazon, but am forced to go thru the union shop because of the State regulations, and then I have to wait 2 weeks while those guys, who sit on their asses all day and go home at 3 pm EVERY DAY!!! (and people in our research group work 10 hours every day including weekends!!!) just to have my piece of machinery done. And I as I PL am forced to play politics with the Union, all the while I can get the same piece of equipment from an outside vendor in 3 days for 1/10th of a price???
It’s mostly data analytics and software now. For any remaining hardware tasks we will 3D print what can be done that way. Sorry, if the shop charges 8 hrs to do 30 minutes of work then this is inevitable.
Hiring for Exempt workers but who will do all the work in the shop to make all the experiments and widgets??
No layoffs at GRC expected through the end of the year. We are struggling to execute on the existing programs as it is. We are hiring!
All of the union layoffs downtown will likely have a serious impact on the union workforce at GRC due to bumping, as they have had in the past. So GRC is likely to be impacted a lot.
So GE Power lays off over 200 and GRC is untouched? GRC should be shaking in their boots...
I was on Wheel of Fortune and I got to the bonus round and the clue was an space gger so of course I said Niger when Vanna turned over
It is the coolest place on earth - only during winter.
@gagi What terrible economy? Have you seen the news? Companies are struggling to hire talent, esp in the Aerospace business. Even GRC is now hiring back. It has been mentioned here below, that everyone who left GRC or was let go landed exceptionally well on their feet. Here is a fun fact, GRC is no longer the 'Coolest Place on Earth,' as they tried to brainwash us last year
You are all lucky to have jobs in this terrible economy. Show some respect to your betters before we lay off more of you losers.
@civt You got it right. Too many people with a 'leader' attached to their job tittle description who are adding 0 actual value. Parasites. You really got it, quoting 'Ask your self this question. If person or function X was eliminated, how long would it take to notice? And what would be the impact....This is precisely the problem with GRC, where dozens of people and entire Functions serve no purpose.' How about M.G, K.L, D.K...?
I heard they are going to require mandatory overtime for GRC employees in those functions where too many key folks have left. 16 weekend hours required per month with no additional pay except for non-exempts.
Know of anyone leaving today?
Most of the 'leadership' function at GRC adds zero value, and get in the way of the valuable work that gets done by those who aren't part of the bureaucratic engine. VA's time at GRC has been a real blemish on his legacy as a cost cutting, clear thinking visionary who turns around businesses. What we have after almost 3 years is a still-bloated, rudderless ship filled with sycophants, and a depleted workforce losing key talent by the boat-load to other companies.
@dvop & dbnn - The multi band structure put this in check to an extent. The project leaders were careful in asking for time from the SPB and EB folks because of their high charge rates. WIth the single band approach, I am afraid this can run rampant.
You're assuming anyone in the room is adding value. They are not. The names and titles do not matter. They whole thing is to create the impression that GE is a technology company. If Wall Street loses that impression the GE stock goes down.
None of the other business would spend a cent on GRC if they had a choice. None. The only people who care about overhead rates are those too dumb to realize that A) they've been told to spend the money regardless and B) think they are getting more than a powerpoint in the end. The whole thing is overhead.
@citn is correct. If these people are charging for attending meeting and reviews, not really adding value then the $ get indirectly accounted into the charge rate for people that are genuinely working. That explains the high rates for externals (partly). @ckgg - read the writing on the wall. GRC is done.
@citn and @civt -- please read more carefully, or announce that you are changing the subject. The claim was that platform/mission leads, etc., raise GRC billing rates. As @chqr explained, that is not true, unless they are unapplied or low ALR.
Whether these people are effective or worth the cost is a separate question from billing/overhead rate.
GE is done. The leaders have roasted so many golden geese companywide that their slaughter of the golden geese creatives at GRC will be barely noticeable. Lastly you'll be able to stick a fork in the meatball, as it's all but over now.
Platform leaders, BPMs, mission leaders....adding value?? Really? If value is defined as calling meetings and reviews and pandering to GRC/business leaders, then sure. Ask your self this question. If person or function X was eliminated, how long would it take to notice? And what would be the impact....This is precisely the problem with GRC, where dozens of people and entire Functions serve no purpose.
Research institutions like GRC are only valuable in the aggregate. If 5% of their ideas turn into real $s, they are doing better than VCs. If you start measuring each researcher on short term goals, you are not going to have a collaborative environment and free thinking needed to innovate. No, I'm not in GRC.
GE knows how to tighten the screws by putting metrics on everything. Paradoxically, you need inspired researchers who create for the fun of it. Managing creative types is not the forte of our leaders. They need color coded metrics.
Hope GE can weather this downturn and keep at least part of brilliant minds. Losing people takes two weeks. Rebuilding will take years.
@chqr - the senior principals and mission/platform leads have high ALR because they attend review/weekly meeting. Not truly adding value IMHO. I agree with the rest.
Exodus.....Movement of Jah people. Yeah yeah yeah!
There's a very simple solution to all of this. It is to have nearly all people at GRC managed by their sponsoring businesses.
Won't. Ever. Happen.
The purpose of GRC is to support their managers. Nothing other than that.
Also, as the number of applied researchers drops, billing rates need to increase to offset fixed costs. Not a good situation. To improve the situation, GRC needs to stabilize or increase applied research staff, get more GE business employees on site, and/or close down some buildings and equipment.
@chcx -- Extra "leaders" only increase billing rates if they're unapplied or running a low ALR, because that raises GRC overhead. Whether you like them or not, I bet most of the platform/mission leads and senior principals have a high ALR and don't add to overhead.
I suspect billing rates are high because GRC has a HUGE physical plant that's expensive to operate and maintain, large P&E expenditures still on the books, and many unapplied people (NOT the ones you mentioned, but EB+ leaders, functions, hourly support, etc.). I thought the new funding model included various proposals to lower some of those costs.
During the shuffle of 2017, the good managers became TOLs and the not so good (for the most part) were moved to being platform leaders, mission leaders and senior principals. Someone has to pay for their “leadership” activities. This is part of the reason the real rates are high. VA tried to play games with the rates by artificially reducing them using internal $, but now those $ are going away as well. We are not competitive for our services. Would you pay $580k for 1 SPB and be happy with a set of PowerPoint slides at the end of the year?
@ceyz - GRC not considering the green card sponsorship is a new low, if it is true. I know several people who are under a 2 year contract ("bondage?"), which prevents them from moving on to new jobs, if they had accepted GRC's green card sponsorship. The fines involved are pretty hefty from what I heard.
The most up-to-date external rate for SPB is $580k / year. Such rate is preposterous - where does the cost come from?
Also, another nugget: have you noticed the ratio of blue to red badges? It has been dramatically dropping. I have had two separate discussions with very smart red-badge PhDs. The GE legal department has refused to sponsor their green cards and offered a 12-month deferral. Merits of the past are no longer valid. Patent applications or even issued patents no longer count. The number of publications does count as well as the citation count. But does GRC have the money to send people to conferences? It is an interesting tactic to keep some talent at GRC. Otherwise, who would want to come to Niskayuna? Ten years ago, GRC was the premier destination for my field. Nowadays we lose the best candidates too frequently.
But I do hope for the best, of course. And actually, I am not worried. Pretty much everyone who left GRC (or was let go) has landed on their feet and is doing quite well.
The Wall Street perception that if GE gives up on GRC then GE is worth less has a one second payback period. One second. Dumbas.
@bhvh...never underestimate the whim of the GE leaders. Case in point...back in November JF was overwhelmingly certain that the BiG 3 was going to consist of GEP, Health, and GEA. Fastforward a few months, earnings lag, investors get madder, and suddenly Healthcare is gone. Unfortunately GE's technical rep is as tarnished as the once-glorified HBR reputation. JF and the finance folks leading this company really don't care about technology unless if shows a <3 year payback.
GRC works for itself and holds it's relationship with GEA as an example of how the other organizations should treat GRC. Other organizations aren't interested in competing for GRC's favor and have moved on with the exception that they still pay their corporate tax to GRC. They no longer want to pay it. Frankly, they never did before but with cash flow being such an issue, it's a good argument to reduce cash out flow to GRC.
Other organizations are not interested in renewing their relationship with GRC. It's been tried before. They just want an amicable parting and are waiting for corporate permission. Corporate knows that part of GE's reputation is having a strong GRC but they've never known what that looks like nor how to manage GRC towards that. If corporate does noticeably reduce GRC it would look really bad. Corporate does not know what to do with that perception and is waiting for it's own direction on how and to what extent to reduce GRC.
GRC can only get as much money from GEA as there is value. Anyone who has built their careers on Healthcare or BHGE tech needs to be updating their CVs and getting ready for the inevitable. Sure VA and JF will try to make the spinoffs take some GRC folks, and likely sign a purchased services contract for GRC long term work but think SABIC....how long will it last? Earlier comments about GEA needing 400 current GRCers is overstated, as is the 40% of current funding comment. Expect the final wind-down to be closer to 250.
In case you all haven’t noticed - we have a cash problem at GE and GRC is upfront cost. Payoff of investments in GRC take multiple years for the most part and not months like the businesses would want. The only business with patience for GRC timelines is aviation. Enjoy it while it lasts.
@bfgj -- Only a small amount of "genuine concern" for GRC employees comes across in the comments below. This argument started with a post implying GRC was not useful, while expressing resentment that we got raises, XLPs, and (now, apparently) smartphones. When I tried to defuse the resentment by pointing out what was going on here, the comments continued to trash GRC, saying only "leeches" and more senior people were still here. The "genuine concern" was not overwhelming.
Joyce's support for GRC goes far beyond flattery at all-hands meetings, but I can't put details here. The 40% ratio includes all the present GE businesses -- not just the 3 that are staying. So the level of support is somewhat extraordinary. If anything, the ratio may go up as the rest of GE shrinks.
Agreed that David/Aviation wouldn't want or need all of GRC. Some others could be supported by the mechanisms discussed below. But...the people Aviation DOES want won't stay forever if the environment doesn't improve. If I know that, wouldn't DJ also know? If yes, then...?
blge - GRC has neither the time nor new leadership coming in the near future. No one is contesting that each employee makes his/her own decision when their time is right. Working in GRC can give one tunnel vision and some here may be sharing their external perspectives from a position of genuine concern. It may not be what you want to hear/read.
GRC’s days are numbered. From what I reckon aviation can support 350-400 ppl there. The rest are not directly contributing to GEA. Certainly not needed at $350/hr. DJ can say what he wants about the importance of GRC to GEA. You must have heard such lip service paid to you at every all hands attended by non-grc leadership. If you believe that then I have a bridge....
But such flattery does not translate into $. Even DJ is only at 40% support level. And he is 1/3 if the remaining business, so level of support not surprising or extraordinary.
One benefit of external programs is that you will be able to work on material that can be presented externally. Make the most of it, work on thing that can be talked about in an interview and jump when you can. Nothing wrong in saying that. If you cannot jump for what ever reason, then stay. No one is forcing you to jump (at least not yet).
@bxxw -- I assume you're not talking to @arxx, but to @azld below. NO ARGUMENT about the bad leadership in GRC, or that we're too expensive. The new business model is being evolved and I don't agree with all of it, but it's definitely not Bell Labs. Otherwise, you sound like an ex-GRC-er or someone who knows people there. I think GRC could be fixed, though it will take time AND new leadership. But with friends like you -- jeez!
@arxx -- None of the GRC posters are "telling the businesses that they know best how to fix the situation". Instead, the opposite is true. YOU keep saying you know what's best for GRC and its employees -- i.e., that we should look for new jobs and/or close down.
To both @arxx and @bxxw : You had no counter-argument to David Joyce being on record as saying he absolutely needs GRC for his business to be successful. And you ignored the person who pointed out that many industrial companies see the value in keeping research organizations.
If you don't think GRC brings a net value to GE, then fine -- that's your opinion. But many GE business leaders and technologists take a different view. Many in GRC want the chance to help GE and GRC recover from where we are now. If it doesn't work out, we can find new jobs, but some of us aren't ready to give up yet.