1. COVID-19 threatens M&A already in process— Physician survey shows widespread concern about access to testing and medical supplies for COVID— Novartis cancels $1B generics sale — See more on our front page news Stay updated with the latest pharma-related coronavirus news on our new page
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Think you have witnessed fraud?Ask a Whistleblower Attorney -- a chance to discuss whistleblower-related legal issues with practicing whistleblower attorneys.
    Dismiss Notice

How's Annette doing??

Discussion in 'GlaxoSmithKline Lab Personnel' started by Anonymous, Oct 14, 2012 at 1:54 PM.

Tags: Add Tags
  1. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    I don't think there is a positive spin to any major R&D site taking a hit, like RTP took today.
    If there are some employees there who are close to retirement, then they will be able to make off like a bandit if their management will give them a package.
    I recommend you to be careful with the schadenfreude attitude - GSK management seems to like the idea of "virtualizing" more & more of the R&D effort, and just buy in the IP for late stage development, which may get later and later until finally there's no inhouse work at all, at any site.
    One bright spot may be if you prefer Philly cheese steak sandwiches over pork barbecue, then you will love being relocated to UP.

  2. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    You misinterpret my attitude.

    I'm not laughing at the people who are getting laid off. Far from it. Those are my friends. I feel terrible for them.

    I'm laughing at the moron who thought that it was OK for RTP to not have any representation on Annette's leadership team. Some moron bought into Annette's lame explanation that she would only pick people who were already on her LT.

    It was perfectly obvious to most people that if RTP had NO one represented on LT then RTP was going to reduced to a site that didn't need any representation.

    That's what I'm mocking - the gullibility of some folks who buy into the management bull sh-t explanations.
  3. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Re: "investing" in EBF?

    Looks like the raid on RTP continues.

    Chemistry moving from RTP to UP.
    Particle Sciences and Devices moving from RTP to UP.
    Physical Properties moving RTP to UP.

    What's staying?

    Dermatology (this year's fad)
    Evidence Based Formulations (last year's fad)
    EDS (only as long as the DPUs are still in RTP).
    Process Robustitty group (first ever self-destructing department, designed to evaporate in 3 years)
    Line Extension group (with no formulators!)

    RTP is one step closer to the scrap-heap of history
  4. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Re: "investing" in EBF?

    Formulation/Analytical moving from RTP to UP
  5. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Yes. We get the message and we will take the appropriate action.
  6. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    It is pretty clear that PTS will leave RTP in the next 3-5 years - that is all of the remaining PD, IMS, DMPK, SA etc. It is interesting that the UK is the predominant country in PD with 65-75% of the staff in key groups.

    The reorg has eliminated some middle management over staffing - like in PACE and ACA. But it a very brutal way of doing it.
  7. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Question for the LT: What the hell do the staff do?
    Answer: Who cares.
  8. I still laugh at that old post.

    Some bozo didn't think that there was any connection between Annette not having anyone from RTP on her leadership team and the ultimate fate of RTP.

    Seemed obvious to most people that if a site has no representation on the team that will choose which site will be closed....anyway most of you can figure it out.

    Now that the final words have been carved on RTP's RIP stone, its pretty clear how dim some people can be.

    I wonder what grade level that moron was at. Naively bought Annette's BS reason for giving RTP the cold shoulder last year. Probably still didn't realize what was going to happen until he was sitting in chair today getting it spelled out in baby-sized portions.

    Case closed.
  9. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    The site closure makes perfectly good sense - Kay Hagan did not extend benefits and tax incentives to the RTP GSK operation - she is a liberal and for all those soccer mom types that voted for her - they unknowingly voted themselves and/or their spouses out of work. Besides, the shutdown is necessary as GSK and Novartis ready themselves for the 2016 merger. But even without these obvious reasons - the most obvious one is that Glaxo stole from us - (ranitidine , remember)? And the site was built on our drug. We allowed you to continue this MO but nothing ever came of it - no inventions; no fruit. 14 years of welfare and you ask for rationale?
  10. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    What does Kay Hagan have to do with it. State taxes have been set by the GOP. See businesses move for reasons other than marginal tax differences.
  11. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

  12. allknowing

    allknowing Guest

    We took your logic and assumption into consideration for a few seconds and then we laughed. I think when we fired you perhaps you left your hat hanging in the node. I'll throw that outside the gate on Moore Drive in the ditch and you can sneak by after hours and retrieve it.
    I don't know why we kept you on payroll as long as we did. All of the screwballs in EBF and EDS are now gone.
  13. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    I was in EDS-RTP, what's your complaint with EDS?
  14. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Only because you were correct on this allknowing doesn`t mean you need to crow.
  15. suckling pig

    suckling pig Guest

    I can't wait to suck the colostrum out of Annette and the new boobs she appoints to her leadership team.

    The idiots are lining up for their little interviews. If we appoint any of the existing staff it is just going to be more of the same... moving in the wrong direction. She needs to go in a completely different direction.
  16. gone girl

    gone girl Guest

    Is the PD/PTS re-org not yet complete?

    The lay-offs were announced on December 3rd, my department's last day was April 1st, and PD still doesn't have its organization in place?

    Maybe they're waiting until December to wrap this up - to make it an even year.

    Another nice example of what's wrong with PTS.
    Taking about a year to complete a re-org, especially when there is a re-org about ever 3 years demonstrates a complete failure of leadership and decision making.
  17. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

  18. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    It's a interesting lay-off round this time. It would seem that most pools (in PD) are swamped with people who have stated a preference and yet will close for all due to people taking alternative positions. It does make me wonder if we had just had a recruitment freeze and strategically backfilled losses to new positions if this could have all been done without the panic caused by the big R word. One way or another PTS will lose a lot of great scientist and we can but wish them the best of luck. The grass out there does look a lot greener.