Monday, December 12, 2011

AMRI/Lilly: When should public shaming of execs start?

Can anyone give a defense of either AMRI or Lilly in this (IMHO) execrable "AMRI at Lilly" deal? I suppose it's "hey, we could just not hire anyone." I find this whole thing odious.

That said, here are the links to the 20 new B.S./M.S. positions and the 14 experienced (2-5 years) B.S./M.S. positions being advertised. 

At what point do we as a community of chemists start advocating public shaming of managers/executives who put together these deals? Are there lines to be drawn? Have they already been crossed?

Best wishes to us all. 

13 comments:

  1. I guess if you've got more than 5 years in, you're past your expiration date?

    This is great for folks without a lot of experience, but if you've been in the trenches for a long time, no soup for you.

    I'd love to know what they are paying. Any guesses?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Shaming managers, or really anyone who has to make a business decision, toward a particular choice is always at best a Pyrrhic victory for employees. It might save salaries and/or jobs in the short run but could undermine the solvency of the entire business in the medium or long term.

    It is more positive (from both our perspectives as chemists and their's as managers) to seek to argue persuasively that a particular course of action is a bad for BUSINESS, which I think can be said for many of the strategic business choices made by the industry in the past 15-30 years.

    As for shaming those executives who are quite disingenuously 'testifying' about a so-called shortage of qualified STEM graduates, please shame away. And any Congresscritter who sets up these testimonials as a marshal for certain policy changes should probably be tarred, feathered and exiled from polite society.

    ReplyDelete
  3. @Anon8:30 - Any politician who doubts the availability of qualified STEM graduates should stop decrying the issue in public, and try going to a job fair. Count the scientists! (Like a children's game, really)

    For bonus points, ask each how pharma construction is progressing at the brand-new Biopolis park (Singapore), or perhaps SIOC (China)?

    ReplyDelete
  4. "At what point do we as a community of chemists start advocating public shaming of managers/executives who put together these deals?"

    Would anyone care?

    LLY (and others) are just doing as much as they can get away with and, in the current job market, that's a lot. Retail companies do similar crap, by classifying employees as 'part-time' to avoid benefits. Sadly, there's really nothing to stop guys like LLY or PFE from doing same.

    I'd be pretty pissed off to be fired from LLY, and then rehired by AMRI to do my same job, in the same lab, for less benefits: but, trying to make a living in Indianapolis as a chemist, what else are you going to do?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Not to be snide, but isn't this better than Lilly simply shipping jobs to China? I understand the pay/benefits are more than likely going to be less - but there are still jobs here (for now). And it's Indianapolis, not a high cost-of-living center.

    @9:52 AM, which would you be more pissed at? Lilly letting you go and being rehired by AMRI, or Lilly letting you go and nothing?

    It's tough to accept this is happening, but unless something drastic happens (and I don't know what that might be), either R&D jobs are going off-shore, or to situations like this. I don't see what the government can do without opening a huge can of worms for all industries, not just pharma and I don't see unions being the answer either.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Right now, I'd take a Pyrrhic victory.
    Managers don't give a damn about the business - they are milking it for as much as they can before their jobs are gone too. They are squeezing as much out of the regular folks because its the only way to keep their own sorry jobs. I vote for public flogging of them.

    Face it - we're done. R&D is just not going to exist in this country any longer, in the not too distant future.

    ReplyDelete
  7. chemists occupy indy?

    ReplyDelete
  8. "@9:52 AM, which would you be more pissed at? Lilly letting you go and being rehired by AMRI, or Lilly letting you go and nothing"

    Fair point. I'd be more pissed at lly not having the balls to just say "we don't think you're worth that much, so we're cutting your pay". I'd be more pissed were I a lly shareholder, if I knew that LLY were paying AMRI a premium for their cowardice.

    I do agree with you that I don't know what the answer is, at least for chemists.

    ReplyDelete
  9. indeed states the experienced positions are 70K+. Though indeed has been WAY off before in my experiences. If salary is true, then the kicker is probably lousy benefits and unknown future. (AMRI and Lilly's contract is for 5 years, with possible extension).

    ReplyDelete
  10. indeed states the experienced positions are 70K+. Though indeed has been WAY off before in my experiences. If salary is true, then the kicker is probably lousy benefits and unknown future. (AMRI and Lilly's contract is for 5 years, with possible extension).

    I'd be stunned if they paid that much. As for the 5 year contract. Everyone in this industry is pretty much on a year-to-year contract, so they may have more security than the rest of us...

    I'm under no illusions that my employment status isn't reviewed this time each year...

    ReplyDelete
  11. Meanwhile on Friday, Amri layedoff 25 med chemists in alb
    And it's 6 yrs

    ReplyDelete
  12. @bb(o)nya....
    "Fair point. I'd be more pissed at lly not having the balls to just say "we don't think you're worth that much, so we're cutting your pay". I'd be more pissed were I a lly shareholder, if I knew that LLY were paying AMRI a premium for their cowardice."

    If a company came in and said what you just stated regarding cutting pay they would be vilified more than they are now. As a business practice this is much more palatable. And, exactly what has Lilly gained their shareholders by doing research internally? What "cowardice" are they showing? Your comments are not based on much, except anger. Lilly has performed poorly (beyond poorly) and their biggest drug is coming off patent soon - so if I were a shareholder (full disclosure, I am not), I would be more pissed if they kept things going as they were and not making changes.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Avogadro writes in to say in response to A1042a:

    "Actually, only ~10 were laid off, some went to other departments.

    And ~10 "volunteered" to go to AMRI-Lily."

    ReplyDelete