LILLY GREENFIELD REPORTED JOBS DECLINE

June 6, 2003 - updated November 1, 2006

1990 - 900 employees, will add 100 by 1998.
(Daily Reporter, April 25, 1990) $60 million expansion

2000 - 780 work force, will add as many as 75.
(Indianapolis Star, Dec. 7, 2000)

$48 million expansion - However, “Last major expansion was a $3 million renovation to small scale drug production buildings in 1998" - Eli Lilly spokesman, Sagebiel

2001 - Will add 75 new jobs.
(Tax Abatement Authorization, January 2001)

2001 - 800 employees, will add 60.
(Indianapolis Star, June 13, 2001)

2001 - Will add 135 new jobs.
(Ron Pritzke, Greenfield, IN Common Council meeting, www.greenfieldin.org, June 14, 2001)

2002 - 750 employees.
(Indiana Business Magazine, www.indianabusiness.com, April 2002)

2003 - 725 employees.
(Council for Economic Development website www.cedhc.org Hancock County 2001-2002 figures )

2003 - 750 employees
(Indiana Business Magazine, www.indianabusiness.com, April, 2003)

2003 - Eli Lilly cut work force by 700 workers in 2002.*
(Daily Reporter, April 22, 2003)

2003 - 800 employees.
(Daily Reporter, April 29, 2003)

2003 - 800 employees.
(Daily Reporter, May 3, 2003)

2003 - Elanco will move office to Greenfield, 130 workforce but “some will stay” at Indianapolis Lilly - will others commute?
(Indianapolis Star, www.indystar.com, May 30, 2003)

Few jobs, if any, will result for Hancock County residents from move of Indianapolis employees to Hancock County.

2003 - 700 employees
(Indianapolis Star, www.indystar.com, June 4, 2003)

2003 - 700 employees
(www.WISHTV.com, June 9, 2003)

2004 - 900-950 "workforce".
(Daily Reporter, March 13, 2004)

Don Pearson gives the 900-950 number as the plant's "workforce" while also pointing out the droves - "5" - of Elanco families actually moving to Hancock County. Mr. North writes, "More than half of the facility’s employees now live in Hancock County."However, this means over half do NOT live in Hancock County. Elanco is also noted as bringing the 130 jobs in the fall of 2003 when they consolidated their operations (marketing and sales?). Mr. Pearson also notes, "The company has some attrition but we bring in two or three new people at a time for the Greenfield operation...We are setting them set up constantly." However, on the lilly jobs website as of 5.3.04 only 7 out of the 16 (6 out of 16 if you discount positions directly related to servicing Elanco) jobs listed for Greenfield at https://jobs.lilly.com were for full time Eli Lilly employees (without a fixed termination date).

2004 - 330 employees?! (must refer strictly to Elanco employees)
(Indiana Business Magazine www.indianabusiness.com, April, 2004)

"And Greenfield’s Lilly Laboratories / Elanco Animal Health Division has moved 130 employees from an Indianapolis facility, boosting Greenfield employment to 330."

2005 - 838 work force
(Daily Reporter, March 10, 2005)

Under pressure to deliver on their commitments promised in exchange for Hancock County tax abatements, Lilly announces new numbers in a "compliance form". "According to the compliance form, Lilly has added 61 new employees, and more than $5 million in salaries. That brings its total number of employees to 838 with salaries amounting to $73 million."

2005 - 600 employees
(Indianapolis Star, www.indystar.com, March 12, 2005)

"At Lilly's Greenfield site, where some 600 employees work in toxicology buildings."  An easy guess [consistent with our previous analysis] is this this number references the number of actual Lilly employees.

2005 - 600 employees
(Indianapolis Star, www.indystar.com, March 28, 2005)

"About 600 people work at Lilly's Greenfield laboratories"  Well, that settles that debate.  So where are the other 238?

2006 - 360 employees
(Daily Reporter, October 27, 2006)

"Elanco now has around 360 employees - about the same amount of local employees as Lilly, said Lilly spokesman Don Pearson."

NEW ANALYSIS:
Lilly Greenfield now - October 27, 2006 - has only about 360 employees.  This number is pretty much right in line with our worst projections from our historic analysis.  Where are the 935 or so employees said to be expected by Mr. Pritzke to Greenfield?  Even with the other 360 non-Lilly, Elanco employees Pearson says are there, 720 is even well short of the 855 they promised to Hancock County for the tax abatement. Visit our Why Greenfield Lilly "jobs" matter for more.

OLD ANALYSIS:
If the 330 IS just Elanco and as we suspect (and as the uncovered March 14, 2004, DR article apparently verifies), the Elanco employees will become [are] included in the overall Lilly Greenfield numbers. This would mean Eli Lilly Greenfield employment numbers have fallen more sharply than reported. Without the 75 employees promised in January 2001 abatement or the 60 promised in the June 2001 Star article, and giving Mr. Pritzke's promise all due credit [especially since his 135 number closely matches the 130 number of this article], Lilly is about due to deliver a minimum 935 jobs or additional portion thereof per Mr. Pritkze at the Greenfield Common Council meeting on June 14, 2001. If as all appears so the 330 ARE Elanco employees and Lilly HAS delivered their promised 935 employees. However, Mr. Pearson would not commit to any numbers other than the current 900-950, and it is obvious they would like to enjoy the wiggle room of the next 6 years. Simple math then says, in the best case scenario, they actually have/had more like an estimate of 605 Lilly and Elanco employees prior to the arrival of the full 330 from the Elanco group in the fall.

In all fairness to Mr. Pritkze, there was no "delivery" date ever mentioned in the Greenfield Common Council minutes and curiously even in the Hancock County abatement contract. Lilly never gave a date they would "deliver" the jobs. It is assumable they would have until the end of the 10 year abatement period to deliver "approximately seventy-five (75) persons" - that's DECEMBER 5, 2010 at the earliest!!! Isn't ten (10) plus years to come up with seventy-five (75) jobs a little forgiving? It's been over three (3) years and they've lost one-hundred (100) explicitly stated jobs so far - I don't think we want to know what 2010 is going to bring at this rate... and the remaining 60? Whatever!

Unless, that is, they were already counting the 200 Elanco employees evidently already there. In which case, not only were the reported numbers even further askew with only about 500 Lilly employees at the Greenfield facility at roughly this time. Beyond the appearance of insincerity, it would simply be unfair to our community, to then include the Elanco employees in the Lilly numbers without clearly explaining so first? Perhaps I missed that article too but I don't think it was printed in this country. Given the benefit of the doubt, they still have about six (6) plus years to deliver about 400 new, non-Elanco / non-commuting-from-their-old-homes-in-Carmel / non-buy-out-targets, full-time, full-wage employees who will earn their privilege to eat at the Company cafeteria when they retire. This is not to say that the Elanco employees are not appreciated or wanted, it is more a concern that Lilly is delivering an unknown product of potentially greater volatility when the community needs and was promised stability.

While the 605 number is a pretty safe guess, my bet is for a bit more complex arrangement of numbers that I fully disqualify as a hunch or guess. Taking the 500 number as the Eli Lilly employees and adding the Elanco group of 330 there would be a missing group of approximately 100 unaccounted for that would then most likely be contract workers, temps, interns, heck maybe even some of the off duty Sheriff since we are talking about "workforce" here. The detail that could point to this interpretation is where Mr. North writes on 3-13-04, "More than half of the facility's employees now live in Hancock County." And in this case the lower number of Lilly employees would help explain the low percentage of the "Facility's employees" living in Hancock County. Whatever the case, it would appear Lilly would now have itself between the proverbial rock and a hard place. Our community would be horribly disappointed if they failed to meet their promised objectives while gambling millions of our tax dollars on hopeful expansion, and so would investors, who generally believe fewer employees means lower overhead and greater profits, be disappointed to learn of any fat that could have been trimmed while Lilly gambles on expansion with their money. Nonetheless, the outcome should be enlightening.

It's not too hard to divine our future. Especially in light of Lilly's swaggering first quarter earnings announcement in the Indy Star www.indystar.com where Sidney Taurel is quoted as pronouncing, "'We are rediscovering our corporate roots' and transmitting corporate values to new employees." ...not pretty, folks. So let's see here, profits up, Lilly Greenfield jobs down and money in Taurel's bank -- hmmm, how did that all work out?

LESSONS LEARNED:

FACILITY EXPANSIONS = JOBS DECREASE
Lilly Greenfield jobs have decreased from 900 jobs to somewhere between an estimated 500-605 jobs from 1990 to 2003 at a time when facility expansion in Greenfield was in progress. It is worthy to note that this comparison assumes Lilly was running the "workforce" game back in 1990 as well.

THINK AGAIN - COMMITMENTS GO UNMET
From 1990 forward, several interim recorded representations of jobs to be added have been made. It appears Lilly has not achieved these commitments. Please remember most of the non-referenced numbers are reasonably deduced from the limited information Eli Lilly will release on the topic. Curiously since we began watching the topic a year ago, much less information seems to get released now. But, clearly, even their numbers indicate broken promises and/or wishful thinking. Where did all the promised and actual jobs vanish to? Unknown, though some noted movements of larger proportion could indicate acquisition or sale of Lilly Greenfield resident subsidiaries such as in the case of the Elanco group currently. Though, had they actually kept their 900 employees back in 1990, and been able to retain them - a simple lay-up for a Fortune 100 best company to work for that did not "layoff" employees - at least 900 happy Lilly workers should be working at Greenfield Laboratories about now. Unfortunately, as of October 2006, we are now left with about 360.

SUCCESS AT LILLY DOES NOT GO UNHEARD
As Lilly should, they take pride in success and pride in ensuring their success is known. So it would be tremendously inconsistent if there were a whole bunch of unknown and full-blown Lilly employees - going unrecognized at the Greenfield Laboratories. With all truthfulness, I believe Lilly would like nothing more than to tell us they have already exceeded their job plans by several hundred employees. However, as everyone in the company is governed by the demands of shareholders, they must submit their good intentions to the will of the global marketplace. It's clear with Lilly's ventures in Puerto Rico and China they are actively seeking ways to reduce domestic labor costs. This is fine; it is what they must do to compete in today's markets. However, it will always remain up to us to protect ourselves and our invaluable heritage from the unrealistic intentions of a bygone era.

*specific number refers to Eli Lilly as a whole, not solely Lilly Greenfield.