Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Military Government The Almighty Buck

Lockheed To Furlough 3,000 On Monday, Layoffs Also Kicking In 341

Posted by timothy
from the can-lassie-save-the-military-industrial-complex? dept.
Dawn Kawamoto writes "Lockheed employees are the latest casualty in the government shutdown, with the defense contractor announcing Friday it plans to furlough 3,000 workers on Monday. But what they didn't mention is they are laying off workers too, says a Lockheed source on the hush-hush. Lockheed, of course, isn't the only defense contractor taking it on the chin. Other contractors include United Technologies, which has furloughed 2,000, and BAE Systems which cut 1,000."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Lockheed To Furlough 3,000 On Monday, Layoffs Also Kicking In

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 04, 2013 @09:16PM (#45041503)

    They want to make you think that if you don't give them what they want then you'll suffer for it. Legal extortion from the ring masters.

    • As fun as it is to believe conspiracy crap, a few things are obviously more pertinent.

      Each party thinks it is representing its followers' wishes. Each party wants the other to blink. No representative knows, or remembers, what it is like for everyone else on the planet, whose jobs are not secure as long as they stay scandal free.

      Everyone who wanted this has no idea what it means to the economy, or their portfolios, or to jobs, because the goal was looking tough for the voter. They don't want to inflict pain

  • Defense (Score:4, Insightful)

    by the eric conspiracy (20178) on Friday October 04, 2013 @09:26PM (#45041543)

    Defense spending needs to be reduced, but this bullshit isn't the way to do it. If anything these shenanigans are going to end up costing the American taxpayer more.

    Your (dipshit) Congress in action.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Our dipshit congress......

    • Re:Defense (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Darinbob (1142669) on Friday October 04, 2013 @09:40PM (#45041619)

      Generally most of the people intent on shrinking the US budget as much as possible do not want to shrink defense spending. They consider an overwhelming defense/offense force with pie-in-the-sky projects to be vital, but health care and social programs are unnecessary (or should be handled by the states/counties, at which point they'll gripe that the states/counties spend too much).

      • Re: Defense (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 04, 2013 @09:56PM (#45041713)

        That's a bit of an oversimplification. There are three major camps now in the red team: the neoconservatives who favor imperialism and value military spending for the sake of American power, the vested-interest establishment that wants to feed its defense contractors for little reason except to reap kickbacks and support local porkbarrel spending, and the libertarian wing (with some of the Tea Party) that earnestly and without cynicism believes in reducing military expenditure for constitutional reasons and a sense of historical obligation to the ideals of the Founding Fathers. The blue team finds it hardest to work with the lattermost faction, which uncompromisingly also wants to cut social spending; the establishment cores of each team, blue and red, work together to increase spending on arms and useless foreign conflicts. The leftmost blue team factions (i.e. Kucinich) might like to reduce military expenditures, but no one listens to them. There's really no mainstream political will on either side of the aisle to reduce the military to sane levels, because that will cost campaign dollars and district jobs. Everyone has to Support Our Troops to get reelected, after all. Eisenhower was right: the Military-Industrial Complex has changed the way we think about the economic and political status of the Union.

        • the libertarian wing (with some of the Tea Party) that earnestly and without cynicism believes in reducing military expenditure for constitutional reasons and a sense of historical obligation to the ideals of the Founding Fathers.

          That and the fact that it costs a lot of money. Not that that's a bad reason (I believe it's the best reason), but it's an important one you left out.

          The blue team finds it hardest to work with the lattermost faction, which uncompromisingly also wants to cut social spending

          If the libertarian wing is that uncompromising, then they're either politically naive or just poseurs. It's better to get some of what you want than none of what you want. If you can make common cause with someone, even though you completely disagree with them otherwise, the do it. Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders were working together on a push to investigate the

          • Who listens to the libertarian faction? Nobody listens to the left wing, because there aren't that many of them. Kucinich, Sanders, uh, help me, I'm running out of names. The genuinely libertarian faction? Ron Paul, and, uh, I don't know. I know less about them so add names if appropriate.

            I had the impression that a large percentage of the IT community listened to the libertarians and agreed with them, though it's not half as common here as it used to be.

            You're dead-on right about the left wing, though. It's incredibly frustrating when people point to the NSA-loving pro-military centrist politicians like Feinstein, Boxer, or Pelosi as examples of liberals... Lynn Woolsey was/is a real liberal, but she wasn't into creating a media circus (so nobody outside her/our district really noticed her

            • Re: Defense (Score:4, Insightful)

              by AuMatar (183847) on Friday October 04, 2013 @11:44PM (#45042179)

              The IT community tends to go to both extremes. There's a libertarian faction that's larger than in the general population. There's a liberal faction that's much larger than that, and again larger than the population. The rest seems to fall more or less in the middle. The tea party and neo-con factions tend to be smaller than normal.

              The thing is that the IT libertarians are vocal, and used to be numerous on slashdot. But go into any IT department and poll and you'll see more liberals than anything else.

      • Re:Defense (Score:5, Informative)

        by Black Parrot (19622) on Saturday October 05, 2013 @12:10AM (#45042299)

        Generally most of the people intent on shrinking the US budget as much as possible do not want to shrink defense spending. They consider an overwhelming defense/offense force with pie-in-the-sky projects to be vital, but health care and social programs are unnecessary (or should be handled by the states/counties, at which point they'll gripe that the states/counties spend too much).

        More specifically, they don't want to shrink it at all. They just want all the money spent on rich people.

    • Re:Defense (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Austrian Anarchy (3010653) on Friday October 04, 2013 @09:42PM (#45041629) Homepage Journal

      Defense spending needs to be reduced, but this bullshit isn't the way to do it. If anything these shenanigans are going to end up costing the American taxpayer more.

      Your (dipshit) Congress in action.

      This is not going to reduce spending one bit. When the Congress gets done with 'shutdown' theater, everything that was put on hold will be restarted. The delays will cost more and some of the people who were intimately knowledgeable of the projects will move on, to be replaced by people who do not know as much of what is going on. None of these projects will stop, which is the only way that they would cost any less, they will continue and the interruption will make them cost more. And the Congress will continue appropriating while citing the interruption as a "need" for more money.

    • by gl4ss (559668)

      Well, America is acting as if it was bankrupt.
      Is it bankrupt? it walks like a duck*..

      (* a duck walks it's ass swinging all over the place.

      btw a system where a party holding power in any of the houses(in a multi house system) can decide to block everything in the country is fucked up. that's like 100 guys going on a strike and whole country stopping still. if they were REALLY for the average american, if the average american was really so much against obamacare they could have just done a _real_ strike.

      • Polls conducted on the question give the following results:

        1. Obamacare : Against
        2. Affordable Care Act: For
        3. Coverage for Pre-existing conditions: For
        4. Coverage for young adult children: For
        5. Health Care Subsidies: For
        6. Universal coverage: For
        7. Medicare: For
        8. Medicare Prescription Coverage: For
        9. Small Business Coverage Subsidy: For
        10. Individual Mandate: Against

        Now the same polling found most American thought the ACA includes coverage for non-citizens, death panels and cuts to Medicare. It doesn't.

        M

  • Brilliant PR (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mr. Freeman (933986) on Friday October 04, 2013 @09:58PM (#45041719)
    Lockheed gets to lay off a bunch of employees while blaming the government even though the government shutdown doesn't actually affect them. That's brilliant PR. Now the employees will be angry at the government for shutting down instead of Lockheed executives laying off thousands of people in order to pad their own back pockets.
    • by cfalcon (779563)

      It's ignorant and incorrect to pretend that it doesn't effect Lockheed. Many employees are on bases and can't work. Others directly report to government employees who are furloughed and hand their product over to other government employees who are furloughed. I think the link even says this.

      It's a pretty big deal, and that shouldn't be surprising.

    • by BLKMGK (34057)

      Wow, you're really not understanding this are you? When the Govt. shuts down so do ALL OF THEIR CONTRACTORS. Any work being done for the Govt. receives a STOP WORK notice. Nothing, not one single hour, can be billed by anyone except those deemed "essential" and you had better believe that Govt. folks get that designation far ahead of any contractor. That directly effects the direct billable folks immediately - as of Tuesday those folks no longer had any work to do nor were they allowed to work no matter the

  • Every cloud has its silver lining. This is an opportunity, not that anyone's brave or smart enough to take it. The last time the British government had this sort of shut down was 1975. The Queen fired parliament. It never happened again. Take your chance now to send a message that doing their job of keeping the government running is more important than the partisan ideological bullshit. Fire congress. Sure, you'll just get some other batch of corrupt ass-hats, but you won't regret having the new batc

    • My bad, it was the Austrailians that shut down. [washingtonpost.com] My first holy cup of java is yet not imbibed. The sentiment stands, such self correction is the way of cybernetics.

      • And Australians still remember it as making a farce of representative government. One guy didn't like the government, so he dismissed it. BTW, tt wasn't the queen, but the governor general, who technically is her representative, but was acting on his initiative. It also led to the movement for an Australian republic - getting rid of the queen and her governor general. Surely any American can sympathize with a cause like that.

    • At least not easily. Unlike a parliamentary system, there's no dissolution option. The vote happens once every 2 years for 1/3rd of the house. There is no clause to speed that up. Some individual states could execute a recall or other sort of ousting on their representatives but it depends on the state law and would require the voters to organize it.

      So part of congress can get fired in 2014, and very well may, but not before then, at least not easily. The executive can't dissolve congress.

      • It's the entire House every 2 years, and 1/3rd of the Senate. Not that they can be replaced, thanks to the massive gerrymandering.

      • by AuMatar (183847)

        No, it happens for the whole House every 2 years. It happens for 1/3 of the Senate every 2 years (plus or minus a few, depending on deaths/retirements of sitting senators). So of 532 congressmen, all but 67 are up every cycle. The real problem is gerrymandering- many are in such safe districts that not only can the other party not beat them, but that their only risk is from people even more extreme, forcing them to act more extreme than their actual beliefs.

    • by SydShamino (547793) on Saturday October 05, 2013 @12:05AM (#45042267)

      I live in the middle of Austin, yet I'm represented by someone who lives in suburban Houston. My only option is to vote for or against the guy who is guaranteed to win thanks to gerrymandering.

      How exactly can I fire him?

  • And I was just about to start testing my control system for my democrat-seeking missile system! Oh well, guess I'll just have to go be a male stripper now. If the money's good enough, I might just keep doing that once the government gets rolling again. I guess no one really wanted this democrat-seeking missile system anyway!
  • The Bureau of Labor Statistics is keeping track and can report to congress about the damage they are doing. Oh.. Wait... http://www.bls.gov/ [bls.gov]
  • This just goes to show you that such organizations are actually governmental.

    • by BLKMGK (34057)

      Or that maybe when their employees aren't bringing in money to fund work and have nothing to do that they have to furlough them. duh...

  • Really... when was the last time Lockheed delivered a project on time and/or on budget?

    This is a company with a distinguished history of pillaging the federal government. After all, why charge $10 for a pencil sharpener if you can charge $10,000. Just quote $5 and then show up late complaining that the guy who quoted the deal was fired for underbidding and you'll need another $10,000 to deliver it because of the extra costs involved in cleaning up the first guy's cock up.

    Hope the government stays closed lon
  • The war is winding down and Lockheed isn't getting as much of the defense pie as they were expecting. The whole drone thing isn't something they were ready to exploit.

    Lots of defense contractors are laying people off. So many of them reported this to the government in fact, that hte government asked them to delay the firings because it would show up in the unemployment stats.

    I can only cynically assume that the contractors assumed that now would be an okay time to terminate excess labor.

    They've been talking

I have not yet begun to byte!

Working...