US Defense Firms Preparing To Send Notices

[diveplane]

full link below..

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/industry/243005-us-defense-firms-may-push-forward-with-layoff-notices-

[Snoopy]

Right now it's not much better for Civil Service employees either...not a fun time to be a contractor, US military member, or DoD Civil Service employee!

[diveplane]

am just sitting on the fence watching it all play out .. i seen it coming long time ago.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

We are out of money. Something has to give or else we will end up as Soviet Union. We just can not spend money we don't have.

[marcos]

I guess if you cut the defence budget by $100bn that's bound to cost jobs somewhere.

[Stickers]

I feel terrible for people who lose their jobs... but **** we spend a lot of money on the military. I just wish these firms could find other ways to retain their employees. Thanks for the link! I hadn't even heard of the WARN act. I read and talk about the defense budget a lot. I believe in what Eisenhower said in his farewell speech. It will be interesting to see what happens in January.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

I just wish these firms could find other ways to retain their employees.

Most of them are private companies. If they want to survive, they will have to transform their business to make goods that they can sell not just to the Government. If they are unable to transform, then even more people will loose their jobs.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

I guess if you cut the defence budget by $100bn that's bound to cost jobs somewhere.

If I am not mistaken, DoD budget will be cut for about $50 billions under sequestration. That's somewhat around 10% of the DoD budget. And even less then that if you count out-of-budget military spending that we go through every year. So, I don't think that it is as dramatic as some people are trying to portray it.

 

Also, whenever we need money for DoD, congress is quick to act to fill the need. Thus, I don't see this "sequestration" as a big deal at all.

[marcos]

Well I read $700bn to $600bn in a news article somewhere.

 

$100bn from Pentagon budget. The rest is Iraq/Afghanistan and black stuff.

 

http://www.securitydefenceagenda.org/Contentnavigation/Library/Libraryoverview/tabid/1299/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/2977/Supercommittee-failure-affects-defence-spending.aspx

Edited August 14, 2012 by marcos

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Well I read $700bn to $600bn in a news article somewhere.

This must be over 10 years period. Politicians like to put big numbers, but often do not want to mention what time period they are talking about.

 

 

$100bn from Pentagon budget. The rest is Iraq/Afghanistan and black stuff.

 

http://www.securitydefenceagenda.org/Contentnavigation/Library/Libraryoverview/tabid/1299/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/2977/Supercommittee-failure-affects-defence-spending.aspx

I am not sure about this one?

[EtherealN]

Numbers from the horse's mouth: http://comptroller.defense.gov/budget.html

 

As for figuring out which numbers end up where etcetera, and which of them are thus part of these numbers... That's a proper greek labyrinth... :P

[aaron886]

Right now it's not much better for Civil Service employees either...not a fun time to be a contractor, US military member, or DoD Civil Service employee!

 

Not an especially fun time to be in any business unless you sit at the boardroom table. :(

[marcos]

Numbers from the horse's mouth: http://comptroller.defense.gov/budget.html

 

As for figuring out which numbers end up where etcetera, and which of them are thus part of these numbers... That's a proper greek labyrinth... :P

$613.9bn according to that.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

$613.9bn according to that.

That is, over 10 years period, which is about or less then 10% of a DoD budget, right?

[marcos]

That is, over 10 years period, which is about or less then 10% of a DoD budget, right?

The budget for 2013 is stated as $613.9bn in the linked document, which is ~$100bn down on the $700bn it was.

[Cali]

Right now it's not much better for Civil Service employees either...not a fun time to be a contractor, US military member, or DoD Civil Service employee!

 

As long as you don't get in any trouble you should be ok in the military.

[Snoopy]

The budget for 2013 is stated as $613.9bn in the linked document, which is ~$100bn down on the $700bn it was.

 

An actual budget hasn't been approved so any dollar figure is a wag.

 

As long as you don't get in any trouble you should be ok in the military.

 

For now...but I can see more cuts coming...

[Cali]

An actual budget hasn't been approved so any dollar figure is a wag.

 

 

 

For now...but I can see more cuts coming...

 

 

I know they are "letting go" of people with blimishes on their records. Also, I just got a e-mail from the shirt that if you turn down formal training, you'll be out when your enlistment is up. No turning down ALS, NCOA or anything like that. I can alreaday see it now, when I get back from Guam I'll be going to NCOA shortly after. So I'll be away for 6 months, get back and leave again for 5-6 more weeks. Doing more with less is not going away anytime soon. Soon they might have MSgt's out doing work.

[Snoopy]

Doing more with less has been going on since the early 90s...it's the norm now...

[Cali]

Doing more with less has been going on since the early 90s...it's the norm now...

 

When I joined we had more then enough people in the shop, now we are undermanned and doing more. I haven't heard anyone talk about doing more with less until recently. I joined in 1999, doing more with less must of been a phase like a bunch of other programs that I have seen in my time. This seems like it's going to be around for a while though.

[marcos]

'Doing more with less' is a political term used to hide the severity of the circumstances.

Edited August 16, 2012 by marcos

[Snoopy]

When I joined we had more then enough people in the shop, now we are undermanned and doing more. I haven't heard anyone talk about doing more with less until recently. I joined in 1999, doing more with less must of been a phase like a bunch of other programs that I have seen in my time. This seems like it's going to be around for a while though.

 

You must have been lucky...when I was active duty (1994 thru 1998) we didn't have enough crew chiefs for all they wanted us to do...we made it happen but stretched very thin...

[Cali]

That always sucks, I know around 2004ish they had too many crew chiefs and were force x-training them.