Lockheed to close Eagan facility by 2013; 1,000 jobs to be lost

Lockheed Martin said this morning it is closing its Eagan facility by 2013, a move that will affect about 1,000 jobs. Full Story
First Prev
of 8
Next Last
IronRanger

Minneapolis, MN

#2 Nov 18, 2010
This sucks. Nothing more to say.
mark day-tax-a-ton

Johnson City, TN

#5 Nov 18, 2010
No worries. In order to make up for the lost tax revenue from these disappearing jobs and executives, I will simply plan to raise the income taxes on the remaining 'rich' in the state. Furthermore I will extend jobless benefits to all those unemployed until they find a good government job. Simple economics.

Judged:

12

10

9

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Phil

Saint Paul, MN

#7 Nov 18, 2010
Skip was on the right track, MN has higher coroporate tax rates that CA, NY and VA.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/230...
RIOT

Madison, WI

#8 Nov 18, 2010
Pete Clemenza wrote:
<quoted text>
Even though you are dead wrong, "Skip", if the way things are done here in Minnesota are so bothersome to you feel free to follow Lockheed right on outta here.
What a stupid f###ing comment!
I think Skip said it like we all feel. Another company leaving Minnesota. Why? Is it because we have politicians that look after the interests of the citizens?

Since: Nov 10

Lakeville, MN

#9 Nov 18, 2010
Tough week for Eagan. First Thomson Reuters announces the layoff of 60 people on Tuesday and now 1,000 more on Thursday.

I tried to look at this news from the standpoint of its effect on the local real estate market earlier today - bit.ly/ckkuvU
Tom M

Waconia, MN

#10 Nov 18, 2010
Skip wrote:
Yet another employer leaving this worthless chithole liberal state.
Before you jump to conclusions you cannot support with facts, take a few moments to look at Lockheed. The company is a defense contractor. It primarily builds military airplanes and ships. Minnesota is about as far from the ocean as you an get and still be in the United States. And the only airplanes built here are single-engine Cirrus aircraft, which are manufactured in Duluth. Lockheed was here only because it acquired Sperry Univac years ago. My guess is that the company probably would have shut down the Minnesota operation long ago had the work force not been so talented. But as some point, the savings from consolidations could no longer be ignored. If you are designing and building attack ships, you want your workforce to be near the ocean. And if you're building jet fighters, you want your engineers and designers to be near the factory and a military airport, where the planes are built and tested. Believe it or not, not every company decision is based on tax rates and liberal versus conservative policies. Only people with small minds think otherwise.
mary

Saint Paul, MN

#11 Nov 18, 2010
THANKS DEAREST DICTATOR O-BUMBLER !

Since: Jun 08

Apple Valley, MN

#12 Nov 18, 2010
Tom M wrote:
<quoted text>
Before you jump to conclusions you cannot support with facts, take a few moments to look at Lockheed. The company is a defense contractor. It primarily builds military airplanes and ships. Minnesota is about as far from the ocean as you an get and still be in the United States. And the only airplanes built here are single-engine Cirrus aircraft, which are manufactured in Duluth. Lockheed was here only because it acquired Sperry Univac years ago. My guess is that the company probably would have shut down the Minnesota operation long ago had the work force not been so talented. But as some point, the savings from consolidations could no longer be ignored. If you are designing and building attack ships, you want your workforce to be near the ocean. And if you're building jet fighters, you want your engineers and designers to be near the factory and a military airport, where the planes are built and tested. Believe it or not, not every company decision is based on tax rates and liberal versus conservative policies. Only people with small minds think otherwise.
Except that physical proximity to airports, oceans, and factories had nothing to do with the decision.

Judged:

11

10

4

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Captain Obvious

Saint Paul, MN

#13 Nov 18, 2010
I'm going to guess that many of these engineers would fall into Dayton's "rich" category. Add that to one of the highest corporate tax rates in Minnesota and it's a wonder more of our corporate jobs aren't moving elsewhere. Best Buy, General Mills, Target - any of these could justify a move and be gone in a few years.
Walter

Minneapolis, MN

#14 Nov 18, 2010
Phil wrote:
Skip was on the right track, MN has higher coroporate tax rates that CA, NY and VA.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/230...
Don't confuse the liberals with facts Phil.
Sub Sailor

Saint Paul, MN

#16 Nov 18, 2010
Tom M wrote:
<quoted text>
Before you jump to conclusions you cannot support with facts, take a few moments to look at Lockheed. The company is a defense contractor. It primarily builds military airplanes and ships. Minnesota is about as far from the ocean as you an get and still be in the United States. And the only airplanes built here are single-engine Cirrus aircraft, which are manufactured in Duluth. Lockheed was here only because it acquired Sperry Univac years ago. My guess is that the company probably would have shut down the Minnesota operation long ago had the work force not been so talented. But as some point, the savings from consolidations could no longer be ignored. If you are designing and building attack ships, you want your workforce to be near the ocean. And if you're building jet fighters, you want your engineers and designers to be near the factory and a military airport, where the planes are built and tested. Believe it or not, not every company decision is based on tax rates and liberal versus conservative policies. Only people with small minds think otherwise.
Thank you for this dissertation. Now I completely understand why Honeywell made Torpedo's in Hopkins and Golden Valley in the 60's.
Small Business Owner

Saint Paul, MN

#17 Nov 18, 2010
Walter,

Before you and other start blaming this transfer on the tax climate remember that Minnesota, a high tax, high service, high education state has the most Fortune 500 corporate headquarters per capita in the country.
jimbo

Saint Paul, MN

#18 Nov 18, 2010
Interesting enough, I was talking with the operations manager of a large Trash company today. I quizzed him about the volume of residential trash during the past two years. Amazingly he told me that the Volume of residential trash has declined significantly during the past two years. It's the ECONOMY STUPID. Until we get a group of government people who know economics and are able to effectuate the correct principles to get the economy back on track, we will continue to lose jobs and revenue.
Keen Observations

Saint Paul, MN

#19 Nov 18, 2010
This just another example of the anti-business climate in this state with ridiculously high taxes in comparison to other states. Lockheed will just open a plant in North Carolina, great place with tons of white collar college grads and WAY lower taxes. We are off to a good start with a republican legislature for the first time in 40 years. But, after all the damage the DFL has done in 4 decades it ain't gonna be changed around in 2 years.

Judged:

11

10

4

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Joe Merlot

Saint Paul, MN

#20 Nov 18, 2010
While the high cost of doing business in Minnesota has absolutely contributed to the loss of jobs and the recession driving companies to expense savings layoffs (a traditional counter measure) has accelerated those job losses, Tom is probably the most correct on this specific case.

Lockheed acquired a Minnesota company and that was the basis of their operation her in Minnesota. Unless you are talking about actual manufacturing operations vs business operations, the proximity to the coast likely had little to do with the decision. I didn't catch the actual job functions of those being laid off, so I guess I'm not sure. If we are talking about a business operation or development function, the decision was likely more of a logistical and cost decision. AKA, they needed to close a site for expense management and this site just happened to be a sattlelight location with a smaller number of employee's than their other locations.

If you want to point to examples of tax implications impacting jobs, look at the recent Pillsbury (I think it was them, it was one of the long time MN based foood giants.) plant expansion in the south vs the ones they have in Minnesota.

There's other examples as well. This one is more a function of the recession and the companies distributed operations than it has anything to do with Minnesota's tax structure.

If we want to remain economically vibrant in the Twin Cities/Minnesota in general, it is time to start changing things. You don't create highly qualified individuals with entitlement programs and throwing oddles of money at labor groups, that simply stokes the base of a particular political party.

The answers admitingly aren't easy and I know of no silver bullets, but I know that the status quo has us headed in the wrong direction.

Since: Jun 08

Apple Valley, MN

#21 Nov 18, 2010
Joe Merlot wrote:
While the high cost of doing business in Minnesota has absolutely contributed to the loss of jobs and the recession driving companies to expense savings layoffs (a traditional counter measure) has accelerated those job losses, Tom is probably the most correct on this specific case.
Lockheed acquired a Minnesota company and that was the basis of their operation her in Minnesota. Unless you are talking about actual manufacturing operations vs business operations, the proximity to the coast likely had little to do with the decision. I didn't catch the actual job functions of those being laid off, so I guess I'm not sure. If we are talking about a business operation or development function, the decision was likely more of a logistical and cost decision. AKA, they needed to close a site for expense management and this site just happened to be a sattlelight location with a smaller number of employee's than their other locations.
If you want to point to examples of tax implications impacting jobs, look at the recent Pillsbury (I think it was them, it was one of the long time MN based foood giants.) plant expansion in the south vs the ones they have in Minnesota.
There's other examples as well. This one is more a function of the recession and the companies distributed operations than it has anything to do with Minnesota's tax structure.
If we want to remain economically vibrant in the Twin Cities/Minnesota in general, it is time to start changing things. You don't create highly qualified individuals with entitlement programs and throwing oddles of money at labor groups, that simply stokes the base of a particular political party.
The answers admitingly aren't easy and I know of no silver bullets, but I know that the status quo has us headed in the wrong direction.
Actually you're pretty close to the real reason.

They needed to consolidate for cost-savings reasons. Eagan was primarily an engineering facility, as in little to no manufacturing was done there.

It's much easier to move a facility that's just people rather than have to move a facility that includes manufacturing infrastructure.

Hence, Eagan got put on the chopping block since the primary expense is relocation/severance packages.
TtB

Saint Paul, MN

#22 Nov 18, 2010
I always find it funny that news organizations have no problems reporting other company's layoffs, but when their own organization has layoffs, the story is nowhere to be found.
For Now

Stillwater, MN

#23 Nov 18, 2010
Small Business Owner wrote:
Walter,
Before you and other start blaming this transfer on the tax climate remember that Minnesota, a high tax, high service, high education state has the most Fortune 500 corporate headquarters per capita in the country.
So why do they keep walking away? 3M production lines, Whirlpool, Sperry, Control Data, Ford, Northwest/Delta etc.etc. "High service" to whom, transfers from other states to take advanatage of freebee handouts provided without question to any and all? See what your thought process is when you become a medium to large company there "small business owner".
annette

Saint Paul, MN

#24 Nov 18, 2010
Will the last company leaving please turn out the lights?
Bree

Saint Paul, MN

#25 Nov 18, 2010
There are plenty of jobs in Minnesota. This shouldn't be a problem.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 8
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Lisa Murkowski Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
GOP in charge, Senate committees get new leaders Nov 8 Le Duped 1
Joe Miller: 'If 20 million illegals vote, you c... Oct '14 woodtick57 373
Sen. Murkowski: Alaskans deserve a fix for Obam... Oct '14 bottlecap 1
Alaska becomes crucial frontier for Senate Demo... Aug '14 bottlecap 1
Eric Cantor Loses Primary in Massive Upset Aug '14 swedenforever 227
Sullivan beats tea party in Alaska GOP Senate race Aug '14 Swedenforever 5
Alaska GOP candidates clash on immigration Aug '14 Cat74 4

Lisa Murkowski People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE