- Joined
- Dec 18, 2019
- Messages
- 6,538
Sad to hear this. Seems these places simply don't know what good, multi-talented people can bring to an organization. They are short minded - and won't be good to work for. They want cheap drones. Their loss.
-
Welcome back Guest! Did you know you can mentor other members here at H-M? If not, please check out our Relaunch of Hobby Machinist Mentoring Program!
How to find good help in a production machine/toolmaker shop
- Thread starter Jim F
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2022
- Messages
- 943
I agree. It will just take some time and many many applications to find a good fit for my skills.
I have brand new ink cartridges loaded in my printer
. In reality they just want you to send a pdf to them. Cutting oil is my blood.
- Joined
- May 10, 2012
- Messages
- 995
I don't exactly know how anyone can call a machine operator a machinist with a straight face. Your skills would be quite valuable for an organization doing prototype work, building custom machinery and tooling or test fixtures. Not sure what your desire to move around is, but you may have to branch out a bit to find someplace like that. I expect there are quite a few in SoCal, thought, so not that far.
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2022
- Messages
- 943
I am very open to branching out. I was a Mold maker For 20 years. Then most of the shops went to Mexico or got most molds made in China late 90’s. Then I got into the rapid prototype machining and secondary operations. Making and designing lots of jigs and fixtures.
I just have to find the right company that is looking for my experience . It will take time. I will find something.
Cutting oil is my blood.
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2013
- Messages
- 3,214
Not that I would know anything about this but seems like you’d be perfect for one of those gigs at a university lab or something. Building weird and crazy stuff for science experiments and graduate work. I think that’s kind of what Tom Lipton does at Berkeley (or did, I don’t follow those guys much anymore).
-frank
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2022
- Messages
- 943
Funny you mention that. Just last night I saw one for a College. I will be sending a resume shortly. I also have an old work acquaintance working at JPL. They may be looking for Machinists beginning of 2024. So I have a resume there also.
Cutting oil is my blood.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2014
- Messages
- 3,187
You might also want to look at companies that make food processing and packaging machines. The company I worked for made 90+% of its own processing and packaging machines for over 50 years before they were forced into purchasing commercially built machines. I started in an experimental machine design shop. The shop specialized in proof-of-concept prototypes many of which were later turned into production machines.
The parent department took the prototypes to the final stages and placed them in production facilities for extended tests before releasing the final design to be used throughout the company. Machines ranged in size from slightly larger than a bread box to monsters several hundred feet long and 2 or more stories high.
Unfortunately, tax laws and USDA regulations changed in the early 1990's in essence killing the inhouse design and manufacture of production and packaging equipment. Until that time machine development expenses including design engineering, prototype machining, and building and testing of prototypes could be expensed in a 7-to-10-year period. After the tax law changes all those expenses had to be amortized over the life expectancy of the machine. The majority of our machines had an expected life span of 20 to 30 years with the more sophisticated ones having an expectancy of between 40 and 50 years. It was all but impossible for the company to carry the cost of development on the books for that period of time when they could still expense the cost of buying commercially built machines over a 7-to-10-year period.
To further complicate things the USDA in an effort to become more streamlined eliminated the department headquartered machine design approval process that had been in place over 50 years. Rather than send all the blueprints for a machine to their headquarters for approval they now delegated that authority to field USDA inspectors. With the original process once a machine was approved at the headquarters level it was approved for use in any USDA regulated facility. Under the new rules each inspector had the authority to approve or disapprove each piece of machinery. If the local inspector didn't like the design, it had to be modified to his or her specifications to be used at that location. It was almost impossible to get 50 different inspectors to agree on a single design. The machines were no longer standardized and made it nearly impossible to stock a parts inventory diverse enough to supply 50 different versions of the same machine.
To that end the machine design and prototype departments were closed in 1999. The company switched to purchasing commercially built machines and hiring outside engineering firms to make the design changes needed to meet the USDA inspectors' criteria. The cost of developing proprietary machines increased to over 6 times the cost of the previous inhouse design and building. By 2016 the company threw in the towel and switched to purchasing only commercial machinery already USDA approved. By 2020 all the machinery designed and built inhouse was scrapped due to the fact that it was no longer economically feasible to manufacture and stock replacement parts.
Surely a sad ending for the talented and dedicated staff that spent their careers thinking out of the box designing and building next level food processing and packaging machinery. On the other hand, it has increased the market commercial equipment, and hopefully opened positions in those companies for designers and builders.
The parent department took the prototypes to the final stages and placed them in production facilities for extended tests before releasing the final design to be used throughout the company. Machines ranged in size from slightly larger than a bread box to monsters several hundred feet long and 2 or more stories high.
Unfortunately, tax laws and USDA regulations changed in the early 1990's in essence killing the inhouse design and manufacture of production and packaging equipment. Until that time machine development expenses including design engineering, prototype machining, and building and testing of prototypes could be expensed in a 7-to-10-year period. After the tax law changes all those expenses had to be amortized over the life expectancy of the machine. The majority of our machines had an expected life span of 20 to 30 years with the more sophisticated ones having an expectancy of between 40 and 50 years. It was all but impossible for the company to carry the cost of development on the books for that period of time when they could still expense the cost of buying commercially built machines over a 7-to-10-year period.
To further complicate things the USDA in an effort to become more streamlined eliminated the department headquartered machine design approval process that had been in place over 50 years. Rather than send all the blueprints for a machine to their headquarters for approval they now delegated that authority to field USDA inspectors. With the original process once a machine was approved at the headquarters level it was approved for use in any USDA regulated facility. Under the new rules each inspector had the authority to approve or disapprove each piece of machinery. If the local inspector didn't like the design, it had to be modified to his or her specifications to be used at that location. It was almost impossible to get 50 different inspectors to agree on a single design. The machines were no longer standardized and made it nearly impossible to stock a parts inventory diverse enough to supply 50 different versions of the same machine.
To that end the machine design and prototype departments were closed in 1999. The company switched to purchasing commercially built machines and hiring outside engineering firms to make the design changes needed to meet the USDA inspectors' criteria. The cost of developing proprietary machines increased to over 6 times the cost of the previous inhouse design and building. By 2016 the company threw in the towel and switched to purchasing only commercial machinery already USDA approved. By 2020 all the machinery designed and built inhouse was scrapped due to the fact that it was no longer economically feasible to manufacture and stock replacement parts.
Surely a sad ending for the talented and dedicated staff that spent their careers thinking out of the box designing and building next level food processing and packaging machinery. On the other hand, it has increased the market commercial equipment, and hopefully opened positions in those companies for designers and builders.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2020
- Messages
- 1,596
My generation is a bunch of lazy people who over estimate themselves, for instance, there was multiple kids complaining about getting paid $17-20 and hour to push mow lawns for companies, I get paid $12 and hour for stacking hay bales and they try to say push mowing is so difficult, it’s dangerous and underpaid, they just love to whine. Can’t wait for them to realize $20 and hour is great pay for easy work, or they most likely never will.