Thread regarding Raytheon Co. layoffs

Is Raytheon putting pressure on people to quit?

Because it certainly seems so to me.

by
| 4242 views | | 10 replies (last May 12, 2022) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+1fZVaegx

10 replies (most recent on top)

at what point does the custom step up and crack the whip on the management ?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @Inqt+1fZVaegx

As far as I can tell being a company that relies on IP as their main source has only worked for IBM. So you're right, but only in very unique cases.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @3wju+1fZVaegx

No workers = no company..

False. Slice and dice, sell off, lease IP, sell IP.... etc. Company still making money, ie, BoD.... don't need workers to turn a profit on an asset holding firm....

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @2eeo+1fZVaegx

So let me break down what I was looking at waaay back in 2019 which helped me make a decision to leave the company. This is all open source information that could’ve been accessed by anyone…
When they announced the merger I took a quick look at Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northrup. I did simple ratio of # employees to annual revenue. Since salaries are the “ions share” of expense for companies I theorized I wouldn’t be far off on what a company could sustain. Comparing against the combined income of employees, and income (With the shedding of the UTC companies before the merger) and I found that RayTurd would have to layoff approximately 18,000 people (across the entire company) to maintain the industry average of employees to profit. This was before the pandemic hit.
Additionally, UTC had way more debt than Raytheon coming into this “Friendly Merger”. A tactic to make themselves look good is to buy a more profitable company, hide behind merger costs and the other company’s profits to make the acquiring company look good. Ironically, this is why Raytheon acquired Hughes as the heritage pension fund was in the billions of dollars at the time and Raytheon wasn’t doing well. Both scenarios were partially a numbers game to make themselves look good to the shareholders at the employee’s expense. Make no mistake these larger companies care about numbers, and not people.
Looking at that and about 10 other factors, (some of them personal) and I punched out before life got bad. Some of this was predictable, especially if you’ve been through merger once before.
In summary, I wouldn't be surprised if they're still trying to shed people.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @2eqz+1fZVaegx

Certainly seems so to me as well.
We have too many people, especially VPs, executive directors, and directors. Folks who don’t actually contribute to the bottom line. What we don’t have is enough is actual people who make the company profitable. Add that to: lack of opportunities for career growth; horrible offering of benefits; average 2/2.5% increases, etc., all on top of we are worse off 2 years later as a company since the merger. In 2 years, “leadership” is still struggling to make all this work, and meeting real synergy savings, not just what is on paper. I could go on and on, but if you are still here, you live reality every day. Legacy Raytheon businesses are starting to experience that pain and chaos that legacy Raytheon corporate people have been dealing with for 2 years.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1poz+1fZVaegx

At some point you either need to do layoffs or carefully arrange some other, more gently forced, attrition.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1xdz+1fZVaegx

Why do you say that? No workers = no company.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1sxr+1fZVaegx

I would say so...2.5% raise has got me looking externally

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1tcx+1fZVaegx

What gives you that feeling?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @sjq+1fZVaegx

And my entire team.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @omb+1fZVaegx

Post a reply

: