tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post9176356283652603479..comments2024-03-29T13:27:34.119-04:00Comments on Chemjobber: DelawareOnline: 1 in 4 DuPont jobs in Delaware to be cut; DuPont management responds in C&ENChemjobberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15932113680515602275noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-47251931902641900592016-01-08T10:23:27.110-05:002016-01-08T10:23:27.110-05:00Management will probably set something up where sc...Management will probably set something up where scientists are expected to work 80 instead of 40 hour weeks to make up for the lost staff. If that is what is expected from academia, why should things change for scientists?NMHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-46948873674005455142016-01-08T10:05:09.377-05:002016-01-08T10:05:09.377-05:00Except without jobs, you can't create anything...Except without jobs, you can't create anything. You need people to design and make your products. Without them, you aren't making any money, neither in profit or in share price.<br /><br />If deleting 2/3 of your core R+D is being "fundamentally, deeply committed to scientific innovation", I'd hate to see what they'd do if they weren't. Firebomb Wilmington?Hapnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-84058619301270045372016-01-07T14:05:22.635-05:002016-01-07T14:05:22.635-05:00I think that is correct. This is just a reminder t...I think that is correct. This is just a reminder that neither corporations nor investors are natural job creators. They need jobs and workers only as long as they are critical to fulfill their primary goals. For corporations this is making money by creating profits. For straight-up investors it is making money by boosting share price. Jobs are cost centers.SJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-27638320126764010862016-01-07T09:17:54.893-05:002016-01-07T09:17:54.893-05:001) I think people wanted to get what they thought ...1) I think people wanted to get what they thought they were paying for; with cars for example, what they got wasn't very good. If people were going to pay for decent cars and get crap, they had little reason not to spend less to get crap - sympathy for domestic companies and their workers only lasts as long as the sentiment is reciprocated, and being taken for granted does not count. I imagine we earned it some ourselves by not caring enough about our work, but at least part was management's decision that their customers didn't matter. I'm guessing the consequences to management were very different than to the rank-and-file (because the tactics of blame foreigners, ship jobs to Mexico, and make prettier cars are probably pretty profitable).<br /><br />2) "The most dangerous man is a man with an idea, when he only has one."Hapnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-91204979362498827552016-01-06T23:23:03.024-05:002016-01-06T23:23:03.024-05:00Dupont in recent years, especially Ag, sold off ol...Dupont in recent years, especially Ag, sold off older, cheaper product lines to balance the books rather than reinvest. In a depressed market that revenue would have saved jobs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-65753227260958126462016-01-06T20:07:01.078-05:002016-01-06T20:07:01.078-05:00Bummer. I wanted to write:
(Most people are activ...Bummer. I wanted to write: <br />(Most people are actively engaged in many ideas, just not the same ideas).SJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-41305604879062151012016-01-06T20:05:34.738-05:002016-01-06T20:05:34.738-05:00No problem with arrogance.
Neither the free use o...No problem with arrogance.<br /><br />Neither the free use of drinking fountains nor the (still uncertain... see AL news today) right to marry whomever became a reality because one morning some people decided to just change what they do or think. Both ideas came to be because of tremendous and often bloody effort to change the status quo. The effort was necessarily much stronger than the final achieved change because most people are not engaged any of these ideas. (Most people are actively engaged in many ideas, just the same ideas).<br /><br />To affect change on that scale it is necessary to first engage and then change the minds of much of the society. An action of one person can start this change. However, this action must be publicized, exploited, and blown out of proportion to be a tool of change.<br /><br />Rosa Parks' action was effective not only because of what she did, but because it was made into a symbol by civil rights leaders who could not deliver such symbols themselves.<br /><br />To break the back of the "free" trade insanity will take another Rosa Parks and probably more than one. I have yet to see any, or to see some leadership skillful enough to exploit them.<br /><br />In the mean time I will be buying T-shirts of the quality I need, wherever they are available.SJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-61305616255215136422016-01-06T18:23:09.984-05:002016-01-06T18:23:09.984-05:00"voting against self-interest is a powerful t..."voting against self-interest is a powerful tradition in the US"<br /><br />While that does explain how George Bush got elected in 2004, it does have a certain arrogance to it. <br /><br />It is a fair point that the status quo is tough to change, but it can be done if its what the people want: everyone can use the same drinking fountains these days and a man can marry a man.... biotechtoreadornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-79385674211741311372016-01-06T16:48:08.460-05:002016-01-06T16:48:08.460-05:00As I wrote voting against self-interest is a power...As I wrote voting against self-interest is a powerful tradition in the US (and elsewhere).<br />As for voting with our wallets, some of us do have the choice of buying what we think is right. Others don't have that choice in part as a consequence of the existing free trade. <br />Since the free trade became status quo overcoming it requires more than just protesting it. Status quo tends to exist counter to good intentions.SJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-75875344706626377072016-01-06T16:40:43.417-05:002016-01-06T16:40:43.417-05:00I imagine people didn't necessarily want cheap...I imagine people didn't necessarily want cheaper goods, but what they figured they were paying for. If they were going to pay for good stuff and get crap (US cars?), then they might as well pay less to get crap. People aren't eager to save someone else's job if much of the job is taking them for granted. Some of that was workers but at least some was management's decision not to care about their customers. It probably worked out better for management than the rank-and-file - when your business goes downhill because you're just cashing the checks, then you can blame free trade, pillage the unions, ship your work out of country, and cash some more checks.<br /><br />I can't analyze other people's voting habits - I'm not sure if I'm crazy or stupid or if lots of other people are.Hapnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-72503081230464439102016-01-06T16:30:17.617-05:002016-01-06T16:30:17.617-05:00"I strongly doubt that American's wanted ..."I strongly doubt that American's wanted freer trade."<br /><br />They voted in the politicians who made it law and they vote with their wallets every day by buying cheaper foreign goods....biotechtoreadornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-38969276100913753122016-01-06T16:07:54.134-05:002016-01-06T16:07:54.134-05:00I see the analysts' talk of revenue or gains g...I see the analysts' talk of revenue or gains growth as doublespeak for share price growth. In the end this is the only thing investors want. One way to get there is to build an impression of future growth potential. The actual growth is not needed and it may be harmful (continuous high growth is difficult to achieve, it may be easier to post good growth after a decline).<br /><br />After the slicing and dicing of DuPont and Dow no one will we able to figure out what the growth should be, so any growth will be easier to sell.<br /><br />@NMH - ABSOLUTELY! GDP is a misguided indicator of well-being. High GDP growth leads to what you see in China now (or, what you can't see through smog?)<br /><br />@BTR - I strongly doubt that American's wanted freer trade. The demand for freer trade was the response of investors to the rise of collective bargaining and slow decline of post-WWII taxation. There is a discrepancy between the expressed desires and the voting record of American public. This just speaks to the power of salesmanship.SJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-6199439341729508402016-01-06T15:42:06.512-05:002016-01-06T15:42:06.512-05:00"Because the MBA's and the market (as rep..."Because the MBA's and the market (as represented by our very own poster Biotechtoredor (?)) have successfully set this moral paradigm, I would say that, with the exception of the money managers, we are, for the most part doomed to lower wages and poor job stability."<br /><br />You are set for lower wages and poor job stability, but it's what Americans wanted in freer trade: if they didn't they'd insist on US goods. Free trade is unstoppable... (per my favorite President https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tRqRafOqYU) nothing moral or immoral about it, just economics. Globally, what's bad for American workers is good for those living in third world countries who can now live a lifestyle Americans enjoyed in the 1930s, except with iphones.biotechtoreadornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-59921360667987534632016-01-06T15:13:00.170-05:002016-01-06T15:13:00.170-05:00Those GDP numbers look ok if we consider the infla...Those GDP numbers look ok if we consider the inflation has been essential flat for many years.<br />Rheniumnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-35219801543103042242016-01-06T14:51:51.472-05:002016-01-06T14:51:51.472-05:00@Anon 7:32PM - Worse than I thought. Bleh.@Anon 7:32PM - Worse than I thought. Bleh.Harry Elstonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16091371872387480309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-12946814216288848492016-01-06T13:56:59.637-05:002016-01-06T13:56:59.637-05:00I suggest that you might think poor GDP GROWTH is ...I suggest that you might think poor GDP GROWTH is bad only because that is the viewed pounded in by the media and the "experts". In principle, I see nothing wrong with NO GDP growth. <br /><br />In practice: one problem with having no growth is that in our society you will always have people (with MBA's) wanting, and getting, more than what they have. With no growth, that means somebody will get less.NMHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-18435508528746314432016-01-06T13:31:32.378-05:002016-01-06T13:31:32.378-05:00I am of two minds about this - first, I think we c...I am of two minds about this - first, I think we can all agree that the "profit margins are 5% this year, and 10% next year" model is terrible for R&D chemists, and also that keeping margins moving in a larger-than-zero direction is good. <br /><br />Second, the critiques of GDP growth are, I think, somewhat less solid. Here is my overgeneralized argument: <br /><br />This is US GDP growth over the last few years: <br /><br />2007 1.8%<br />2008 -0.3%<br />2009 -2.8%<br />2010 2.5%<br />2011 1.6%<br />2012 2.3%<br />2013 2.2%<br />2014 2.4%<br /><br />We've seen what the US is like in a "low GDP growth" era. Is this good? I don't think so. Chemjobberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15932113680515602275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-20623764205788988002016-01-06T13:13:17.769-05:002016-01-06T13:13:17.769-05:00I agree with NMH. I will never understand the Wall...I agree with NMH. I will never understand the Wall Street idea that unlimited, continuous growth is feasible. You know what in the natural world aspires to unlimited growth? Cancer! At the expense of its host. Is that what we really should be modeling ourselves after? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-87724347472761173812016-01-06T08:09:45.366-05:002016-01-06T08:09:45.366-05:00That's the problem with society in western cul...That's the problem with society in western culture: success is defined by whether you grow or not, rather than sustainability. In light of the fact that the planet has limited resources this seems to be short-sighted.<br /><br />Because the MBA's and the market (as represented by our very own poster Biotechtoredor (?)) have successfully set this moral paradigm, I would say that, with the exception of the money managers, we are, for the most part doomed to lower wages and poor job stability.NMHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-74975230076627444302016-01-06T07:12:12.851-05:002016-01-06T07:12:12.851-05:00Profits and profit margins have not mattered for a...Profits and profit margins have not mattered for a couple of decades, at least not in the chemical industry. Revenue growth is what matters and is what drives everything. If you sell $30MMM this year you better sell $32MMM next year, $34MMM the year after that, etc. For years Dupont management, and especially Ellen Kuhlman, made outlandish promises to Wall Street re. revenue growth. Most recently, in early 2015 Kuhlman and corporate management claimed that the company was going to increase revenue 50% by 2020. That works out to 7-8% per year for 5 straight years. Dupont has not done that for decades, probably much longer. For the last 25 years Dupont has failed to grow through real organic growth (new products) as opposed to acquisitions and spin offs to cover it up. Revenues during these last 25 years have averaged about $35+/-5MMM per year and is amazingly flat. However, factor in inflation and it is obvious that revenues have been on a steady negative growth trajectory for a very long time. For example, Dupont revenues in the early 90s were around $40MMM/yr. Factor in modest inflation and that is over $70MMM in today's dollars. I think Dupont 2015 revenues are going to be in the $25-30MMM range.<br /><br />As much as I want - and do - blame Wall Street for this I blame Dupont management more. They promised and promised and promised to Wall Street and claimed to employees that the latest greatest project/business management bureaucratic nightmare they were going to inflict on us would "double revenues in 10 years". They were either totally ignorant, delusional, liars, or some combination of the three.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-65148277039576529892016-01-06T02:22:42.905-05:002016-01-06T02:22:42.905-05:00Despite all this talk of DuPont declining slowly f...Despite all this talk of DuPont declining slowly for the last two decades, I still don't see how a 3.5 billion dollar profit last year is a 'fail'. Which for me, makes this even more infuriating. What, profit is bad news if it's less profit than before? They increased their profit 20% in 2014.<br /><br />Sure, basic research has been dying, but a successful business is firing people who made it a huge profit. I will never think that a job with a Polymers, Materials or Organometallics degree is safe in the US again, if a company that runs a huge profit like that can get away with this shit. Adds more points to the "never want to come back to the States" box. The "get a good job close to your family in the home region when the opportunity comes up" box hasn't been getting many points lately. Maybe some former Dupont people can get lucky with a consulting job at a Chinese firm that wants to do some espionage. Disclosure and non-competing severance agreements in this case might be legally, but are not morally binding. uncle samnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-65982104119715273762016-01-06T01:53:02.869-05:002016-01-06T01:53:02.869-05:00I did a 5 year stint in industry as an associate c...I did a 5 year stint in industry as an associate chemist before grad school in Chem. Eng., and its just sad to see a great company like this go down in flames. But this is what it has come to when B-school "geniuses" who want to "change the world" do when they get their hands on a company. Regardless if its Big Pharma, consumer goods, etc., friends I am sorry to say, our field is on life support in this country and it ain't getting no better. My has nephew is majoring in biochemistry, and asked me for career advice, I told him, "get really good grades, go to Pharmacy school, and be content pushing pills at Walgreens". Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-45806497431303387812016-01-05T21:31:45.033-05:002016-01-05T21:31:45.033-05:00I agree whole-heartedly with the Ex-DuPonter above...I agree whole-heartedly with the Ex-DuPonter above, who has eloquently described the decline of DuPont over the decades, just as I experienced it when I was there. The endless meetings, questionable ‘quality programs’, risk-adverse behavior, favoritism, byzantine promotion policies, etc. – they’ve all played their roles in the decline. And with the corporate culture at the company so strong, it was virtually impossible to go against this tide. <br />We used to say in the division I was in – the best part about working for DuPont was your coworkers, who were nearly all smart and hard-working, and with whom you could do good R & D work that really made a difference. The worst part of working at DuPont was the management – there was almost no end to the disregard that they held for the R & D folks. It was so bad that one of the older lab technicians once told me that he felt sorry for us chemists, because no one stood up for us, especially our supervisors. At least the technicians had their union.<br />Back in the 1990s I worked with a chemist who emigrated from the Soviet Union in the 1970s. She once told me, with some irony, that DuPont was hardly different from the Communist Workers Paradise, down to the group think, disdain for anyone who ‘thought differently’, the way HR and management kept tabs on ‘troublemakers’, using the intelligence they gathered to discipline people, or even get rid of them. There were even management favorites who were little better than informants. The only thing missing was the Gulag and Siberia.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-60448568331645116132016-01-05T20:03:55.850-05:002016-01-05T20:03:55.850-05:00Anonymous 7:51 again - I should also have mentione...Anonymous 7:51 again - I should also have mentioned that I did eventually join CR&D in the 90s. Was in a lab/office in E328. I was crammed in a 1/2 lab with a single 15 foot hood, glove box, and 20 foot bench, one aisle. It was me and four technicians stuffed in there. We had three desks between the five of us, two in my office with three chairs, and one in the lab. The desks, and especially the one in the lab, were pre-personal computer and only had enough room for a CRT monitor. You had to hold your notebook in your lap to write, there was no room on the desk. It was awful but I had a goddam thrilling time doing research. There's plenty of empty space in E328 today, but the work there sucks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-67254864210258368722016-01-05T19:51:50.942-05:002016-01-05T19:51:50.942-05:00Anonymous - I will quibble with you on one thing -...Anonymous - I will quibble with you on one thing - the building wrap you refer to was done to several buildings on site, not just the "CR&D" building (I assume you mean E328). I interviewed at CR&D before the wrap, was offered a job, and turned it down largely because the labs were so antiquated. They paled in comparison to the labs and offices at other chemical companies and especially oil companies. Even with the wrap the infrastructure there was obsolete even at the time of the wrap. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com