• frunch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    According to the article, it is due to restructuring that has nothing to do with the spite layoffs being used by the Trump administration to punish Democrats for their unwillingness to support a dramatic 2x increase to healthcare expenses for Americans.

    • atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      AFAIK JPL is part of the University of California, not NASA and I’m pretty sure this isn’t the first round of layoffs at JPL in the last few years.

      Edit: It’s Caltech. I misremembered.

      Edit 2: People seem to not be understanding what I am saying so I will clarify: JPL - Founded in 1936. NASA - Founded in 1958.

      While NASA is the primary sponsor of JPL today its management has always fallen to its original founder, Caltech. Both JPL and Caltech are considered Federal Contractors. The decision to lay people off was made by JPLs management and has nothing to do with the current government shutdown. This is the third round of layoffs at JPL in the last 18 months or so and is largely due to cuts and restructuring to planned missions like the Mars Sample Return.

        • atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          I misremembered, but my point still stands; the decision for layoffs, this being the third round in 18 months, didn’t come from the government it came from JPLs management which isn’t NASA.

            • atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 day ago

              How? My point was that management decisions regarding JPL don’t come from NASA. Misremembering the institution doesn’t negate the point I was making.

              • 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                24 hours ago

                of course it does. nasa pays the bills and they are the ones who say “we will hire or fire people, because we do or do not have money”. management from caltech says “ok, these are the people who have expertise we need”.

                you don’t think they are giving money to someone and that someone does whatever they want with these money, do you?

                • atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  22 hours ago

                  That’s literally how think tanks work. Their paychecks come from Caltech not NASA. They answer to the board of governors not NASA. But you also seem to have forgotten the context of the original comment I was replying to.