Dedicated to the advancement of the State of Indiana by re-affirming our state's constitutional principles that: all people are created equal; no religious test shall be imposed on our public officials and offices of trust; and no special privileges or immunities shall be granted to any class of citizens which are not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Advance Indiana, LLC. Copyright 2005-16. All rights reserved.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Eli Lilly Slashing 5,500 Jobs
The Star's John Russell reports on planned cuts by Eli Lilly that include the elimination of 5,500 jobs worldwide by 2011, a 13% reduction, as it seeks to slash $1 billion in costs. Russell says many of the cuts could come in Indianapolis where the company employs 13,500 at its corporate offices, labs and manufacturing facilities. Lilly has already reduced its workforce by several thousand through attrition over the last several years. The City of Indianapolis gave tens of millions of dollars in tax abatement incentives to the company during the administration of Mayor Bart Peterson, who is now a senior vice president with Lilly, based on investment and employment promises made by the company.
Weren't those tax abatements conditioned on employment levels?
ReplyDeleteOf course, you know the city is undoubtedly monitoring this like they monitor Simons - not at all.
My sentiments exactly, Mr. Ogden. When I read the opening of this report, stating Lilly's decision to make gigantic cuts in employment, my first thought was, "after all we county taxpayers have done for Eli Lilly, this is how we are repaid". Oh, I know, others will go on and on about all Lilly donates to various foundations and charities, but they are those it chooses, not voted on by us.
ReplyDeleteAnd there sure is an incestuous relationship between it and elected officials who benefit it. Keep on telling it, please, AI, even if it seems like us 'good government types' are few in number.
The employment promises by Lilly are nothing other than the common practice for the elites to be able to tell the country how conservative and spend thrift they are so it props up fake numbers in good ole Indiana.
ReplyDeleteSmaller companies, college graduates and families have been leaving Indiana by the droves for years and now the big dogs are going to get smacked too.
Maybe the dirty lint under the carpets of all the corruption in the rooms of State and Local government might come out when the house cleaning is done and the folks get drug out into the sunlight. Who has been minding he care taking of big business in Indiana? These people are the bread and butter and someone is worried about the CIB.
When Lilly starts turning out the lights in Indiana folks there is a problem!
Who will support the Colts, the Pacers and the elite if the high paying Lilly jobs are gone?
Indiana tell the CIB and their friends to sit down and shut up, tell the non profits to cut their costs and live like the everyday people they are supposed to live like and for God sakes use the economic development money to keep the Lilly's and the other companies in Indiana. There won't be a need for the glorious CIB if Lilly leaves holes in the economy.
Cutting 1/3 of the work force in Indianapolis using the Lilly figure of $ 1 billion savings is $330,000,000. We need leaders now in Indiana not in China!
$330,000,000.00 is a lot of money. Go ask the folks in State Government that let state contracts with bonds of $270,000,000.00 default twice and who is paying for that mess. What a shame Indiana.
I wonder if the make-work, do-nothing, 6-figure salary making position for Bart Peterson will be eliminated?
ReplyDeleteRemarkable how a $1B money squeeze at Lilly threatens a mere 5,500 jobs, while a $30M money squeeze at the CIB threatens a whopping 66,000 jobs.
ReplyDeleteIsn't it?
The 66,000 job loss claim if we didn't pass the CIB bailout was the biggest lie ever told in local politics. It was unbelievable that politicians cited the claim, but it was even worse that the local media used it without questioning it.
ReplyDeleteOr that we don't have councilors smart enough to question it.
ReplyDelete