Thread regarding Fluor Corp. layoffs

Barnard and Bustamante retire?

Good / Bad? Really retire or was it a gracious exit - probably with a golden parachute?

by
| 2373 views | | 3 replies (last )
Post ID: @OP+14skjJox

3 replies (most recent on top)

Grammatical Correction: The last last sentence in the third paragraph of my post yesterday should read "Ultimately, had the rising tide of an improving economy not finally lifted all EPC boats, Fluor would likely have gone out of business. "

by
|
Post ID: @30xhb+14skjJox

As I peruse the topics and responses about Fluor here on LayOff.com, I see that little has changed in the decades since Fluor and I parted ways. When I worked at Fluor-Houston in the 1980's and was caught up in the turmoil of the era, my opinion of Fluor management was, to put it mildly, much less than complimentary. I can now look back after nearly four decades and take a more objective view.

I must objectively give most VP and mid level managers of the era credit for working assiduously to retain as many engineers and designers as they practically could. Given the serious decline in backlog at the time, these folks sought out every avenue for placing us in various roles on remaining contracts, in field assignments, in other departments, etc. That kept the paychecks coming for many months. Paying work, however, was seriously on the decline and for most of us, sooner or later, our respective numbers came up and we were laid off.

The people whom I can objectively fault for Fluor's debacle of that era were the senior managers. These myopic hacks misjudged the depth and duration of the looming recession. They insisted on bidding premium prices for the few available contracts in the naive belief that the recession would last only a year or two, that EPC competitors would bid low to book available work and that when the economy came roaring back, Fluor alone would have available manpower and could thus book work at high profits. In the meantime, Fluor-Houston would align manpower with available revenues, i.e. they would terminate employees to keep costs in line with billable hours. As the recession deepened, the fallacies of this strategy became apparent. Fluor was left hanging on by a financial thread and senior managers had egg all over their faces. Ultimately, had the rising tide of an improving economy had not finally lifted all EPC boats, Fluor would likely have gone out of business.

Business finally improved dramatically after several very lean years. In need of engineers, Fluor came calling asking me to join their ranks once again. I thanked the caller but politely declined the offer. I have never looked back.

by
|
Post ID: @2Zebu+14skjJox

Good. Over 40 years with company. Knew Les, Alan, and David. Hopefully this will break the buddy chain. More change is needed. Do not be afraid Carlos! At this time nothing to lose. Ask the same people the same question you get the same results. Ray only cut costs and provided no productivity growth with IT. Just IBM collusion. Processes broken by non-Fluor project managers. Ray also broke procurement, commodity price procurement. He cut costs. Huge gap between scope and procurement. New global leaders spent over 5 years on pipe dreams ($$$) and still no solutions for so many functional systems. Unbelievable European influence on Functional processes. Jose, I can not believe he survived so long. Would not have happened in earlier days. New organization putting sales back in business lines should improve accountability. Pulling for all the people still there. Fluor did this to themselves. It was not one bad decision or project execution as David stated quarterly. A true example of a company with a bad board, crazy buy backs, that lost its values over quarterly profits and executive bonuses. Fluor pays extremely well. Executives need no parachutes. It is like America paying for the World Health Organization (WHO) or the Government official over TVA.

by
|
Post ID: @ymj+14skjJox

Post a reply

: