9 ms·

Would you say the same if the Boeing employees that don't like the new unsafe culture should shut up and leave? I think is better when the employees have some

Would you say the same if the Boeing employees that don't like the new unsafe culture should shut up and leave? I think is better when the employees have some power to keep the company true to the ideals and not close their eyes. I understand that is bad PR to criticize unsafe or imoral shit but if this would have happened at Uber or Boeing then a lot of people might have been alive now.

airstrike 7y ago
> Would you say the same if the Boeing employees that don't like the new unsafe culture should shut up and leave? Yes. Best way to incentivize the company to change is to have enough talent leave to force their hand. Anything else is mostly just noise.
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  "Best way to incentivize the company to change is to have enough talent leave to force their hand." Is there historical proof that this is more effective than a union effort?
  - FussyZeus 7y ago
    That is basically a union effort. The cognitive dissonance on display with regard to labor in tech is fascinating. Many have internalized the propaganda created by big business that "unions are bad, unions are expensive, you don't want to unionize" and they aren't willing to revisit that internally, but they're like "what if we just organize without a union, refuse to work unless our demands are met" failing to realize that's exactly what a union is. Union dues aren't collected so somebody else can get paid for doing nothing. That somebody (or somebodies) else is your advocate. They know your industry like your bosses do, except they aren't on your bosses payroll, they're on YOURS, meaning they go to bat for YOU, not the company. And Union membership is often a requirement for working. Why? Because if it wasn't, the company would staff up on workers not wanting to be part of the union, until they had enough to survive the resulting strike, and fire all the union people. The effectiveness of corporate America's attack on organized labor over the last century cannot be overstated. They have done a fantastic job of demonizing any efforts at bargaining from the employee's side, and employee's wages demonstrate it.
    - toasterlovin 7y ago
      FWIW, what's amazing to someone like me, who is anti-union (in tech, at least), is that pro-union people don't seem to understand why people who have succeeded by being highly differentiated from the rest of the talent pool would want to participate in a scheme where the entirety of labor is presented to an employer as a homogenous block.
      - simion314 7y ago
        >where the entirety of labor is presented to an employer as a homogenous block. Maybe do what actors do?
        SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
        My understanding is that actors don't typically have a choice whether to join a union. SAG-AFTRA has enough power and preference agreements that you can't really make it in the industry without joining, even if you don't otherwise want to.
        rstupek 7y ago
        You are mostly correct. You can do one off acting but any major production will only hire SAG artists
        PeterisP 7y ago
        Possibly, but it doesn't have the problem of treating the actors as a homogeneous equally skilled block; "10X actors" are definitely getting adequate compensation while at the same time all guild members benefit from the common protections.
      - FussyZeus 7y ago
        I don't know where this perception comes from but it's not true. Collective bargaining isn't about the entire employee pool being represented as one skilled homogeneous block. It's about giving employees a voice at the decision-making tables in a company. I'm sure you've heard the myriad stories about where the decision makers at a company have done some damn boneheaded thing, something so rock stupid that could only come from never having worked on whatever ground floor the business has. And what can the employees do? Nothing. They have to comply because they don't have a voice, because if they argue, they're fired. If they don't do it, they're fired. THAT is what a union can fix, among tons of other problems. A smart boss is one that listens to his employees when they speak up about problems; a boss working with a union doesn't have a choice. And that's not to say that unions are perfect, like anything else made by humans and run by humans they have flaws. But IMO, problematic representation is better than no representation.
- simion314 7y ago
  I am not sure you get the result you predicted but 100% you don't get safer products
  - airstrike 7y ago
    And arguing over slack / e-mail achieves any better results?
    - simion314 7y ago
      Yes, eventually it will leak to the press that developers at X are arguing if they should ignore pedestrians in the self driving cars because the code is too bad, or colleagues that work on other sections will find the shit that is happening and would intervene. I understand that you are thinking at some stupid politic arguments but I am talking about larger topics like killing drones, self driving cars, law enforcement AI , I want the developers to be able to speak when they see something questionable then leave.
- maxlamb 7y ago
  I think the point OP was making is that dozens of people died because executives as Boeing “shut down” concerns that some long time engineers had. I’m not sure lives at risk with Google’s products but I think the point is hoping that a half a trillion dollar monopoly will change its ways because lots of employees leave is wishful thinking and might only happen if it results in a catastrophe. Google can replace them easily and regardless a majority of their profit comes from search which only requires a small fraction of their employees to keep operating at profit.
  - simion314 7y ago
    >I’m not sure lives at risk with Google’s products Google is experimenting with self driving cars and they are always interested in working for the military or the police. I want the employees to talk if they feel something is not right rather then do the Uber thing and disable the safety because the code was garbage and had too many false positives.
- praptak 7y ago
  Sounds good, doesn't work. No essential change was ever achieved by boycott. What works is enough people willing to stick their necks out and organize politically.
  - airstrike 7y ago
    And which essential change was achieved by internal political battles?
    - praptak 7y ago
      I never said this should be limited to internal battles.
throwawaysea 7y ago
The 'unsafe culture' at Boeing is an overblown fear, IMO. The two crashes on the 737 MAX were both on airlines that are not known for adequate training or maintenance. Everyone got on the "bash Boeing" train while ignoring the reality of what happened. The NY Times finally wrote about it, after numerous articles presenting a one-sided story: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/24/world/asia/lion-air-boeing-indonesia.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/24/world/asia/lion-air-boein... > Crash investigators were presented with photographs supposedly showing that a mandatory test was done after the vane had been replaced. But upon further inspection, investigators concluded the photos were from a different aircraft. > “This is a test that Lion Air was required to do, and they didn’t,” said John Cox, an aviation safety consultant. > If the test had been done, engineers likely would have realized the vane was calibrated incorrectly by 21 degrees. The misalignment would prove fatal because it mistakenly catalyzed Boeing’s anti-stall system, forcing the plane into its final plummet.
- simion314 7y ago
  Please stop with false information, one of the companies has a good record. The safety concerns are real, documented and were ignored. There are many more issues with the MAX then the one causing the crashes, as an example while trying to patch the current software issue a new software problem was found that delayed the update.
  - throwawaysea 7y ago
    What part of my post is false? If you are going to label my comment as false information, the burden is on you to point out explicit falsehoods (not just mere differences of opinion). Your reference to unrelated issues such as the software patch can apply to numerous complex systems in many industries (not just aircraft), and I bet it applies to planes from other manufacturers as well. Your comment seems more like FUD, since it casts doubt in one instance (one aircraft) without a comprehensive understanding and comparison across other comparable aircraft or manufacturers. You can't just take one complex system, scrutinize it, come up with a wish list of things you would want (without knowing the tradeoffs/implications), and then say there is something systematically broken here.
fishnchips 7y ago
> Would you say the same if the Boeing employees that don't like the new unsafe culture should shut up and leave? Absolutely not. And if you leave, at least do not leave quietly lest you end up in jail. But serious as Googlers' misgivings may be, it's hard to compare their concern to what Boeing did.
- simion314 7y ago
  Google is working on self driving cars and they were planing to work for military, so I would prefer Google employees to speak up then shut up and leave.
- frank2 7y ago
  >do not leave quietly lest you end up in jail. Are you saying that an employee might be convicted of a crime in the US for not speaking out as he or she quit? If so, I disagree.
  - fishnchips 7y ago
    If they quit but keep quiet about suspected criminal activity or negligence then at least in my country they could still be prosecuted.
herostratus101 7y ago
Airplane safety is fairly black-and-white compared to, say, the decision to partner with law enforcement or to censor certain kinds of content on YouTube. Given that Silicon Valley engineers have attitudes that are not broadly representative of the general public, I think it's rather presumptuous for them to operate as moral crusaders within a company.
- jrockway 7y ago
  I think the difficulty was that it wasn't black and white. You can say "I think MCAS is a danger because it only relies on one sensor and has authority to make the plane uncontrollable" and someone can counter with "MCAS failing looks like and is fixed the same way as any runaway stabilizer trim, every pilot knows how to handle that". Obviously the second hypothetical statement was wrong, but it's hardly "evil" to make that argument.
  - simion314 7y ago
    Though from what I read they MCAS had too much authority so it was basically operating "illegally"against regulations.
- NikolaeVarius 7y ago
  Aircraft safety is the opposite of black and white. Engineering is all about making compromises, in aircraft, you compromise with weight, otherwise, we would be giving every passenger an ejection seat/parachute.
  - OnlineGladiator 7y ago
    > Engineering is all about making compromises, in aircraft, you compromise with weight, otherwise, we would be giving every passenger an ejection seat/parachute. You forgot cost. The 737-MAX is fairly well documented to have been pushed by management for the purpose of increasing profits while compromising safety.
gfs78 7y ago
Airplane safety is/must be regulated by laws, not by companies cultures and values. In the case of boeing/uber the problem is the regulators are getting more and more relaxed and/or corrupt.
- cma 7y ago
  But if it wasn't regulated by laws, would the same thing apply? People should just leave if they don't like it and don't try and rock the boat?
  - gfs78 7y ago
    If they want to rock the boat who I am to tell them no to. In these Google cases the problem seems to came from the position they are trying to rock the boat. More as a child rebelling against a parent than as a worker against corporate policies. Problem is they are not as important to Google as a child to its parent, and it´s showing.
dang 7y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21781771 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21781771.

airstrike 7y ago

> Would you say the same if the Boeing employees that don't like the new unsafe culture should shut up and leave? Yes. Best way to incentivize the company to change is to have enough talent leave to force their hand. Anything else is mostly just noise.

SolaceQuantum 7y ago
"Best way to incentivize the company to change is to have enough talent leave to force their hand." Is there historical proof that this is more effective than a union effort?
- FussyZeus 7y ago
  That is basically a union effort. The cognitive dissonance on display with regard to labor in tech is fascinating. Many have internalized the propaganda created by big business that "unions are bad, unions are expensive, you don't want to unionize" and they aren't willing to revisit that internally, but they're like "what if we just organize without a union, refuse to work unless our demands are met" failing to realize that's exactly what a union is. Union dues aren't collected so somebody else can get paid for doing nothing. That somebody (or somebodies) else is your advocate. They know your industry like your bosses do, except they aren't on your bosses payroll, they're on YOURS, meaning they go to bat for YOU, not the company. And Union membership is often a requirement for working. Why? Because if it wasn't, the company would staff up on workers not wanting to be part of the union, until they had enough to survive the resulting strike, and fire all the union people. The effectiveness of corporate America's attack on organized labor over the last century cannot be overstated. They have done a fantastic job of demonizing any efforts at bargaining from the employee's side, and employee's wages demonstrate it.
  - toasterlovin 7y ago
    FWIW, what's amazing to someone like me, who is anti-union (in tech, at least), is that pro-union people don't seem to understand why people who have succeeded by being highly differentiated from the rest of the talent pool would want to participate in a scheme where the entirety of labor is presented to an employer as a homogenous block.
    - simion314 7y ago
      >where the entirety of labor is presented to an employer as a homogenous block. Maybe do what actors do?
      - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
        My understanding is that actors don't typically have a choice whether to join a union. SAG-AFTRA has enough power and preference agreements that you can't really make it in the industry without joining, even if you don't otherwise want to.
        rstupek 7y ago
        You are mostly correct. You can do one off acting but any major production will only hire SAG artists
        PeterisP 7y ago
        Possibly, but it doesn't have the problem of treating the actors as a homogeneous equally skilled block; "10X actors" are definitely getting adequate compensation while at the same time all guild members benefit from the common protections.
    - FussyZeus 7y ago
      I don't know where this perception comes from but it's not true. Collective bargaining isn't about the entire employee pool being represented as one skilled homogeneous block. It's about giving employees a voice at the decision-making tables in a company. I'm sure you've heard the myriad stories about where the decision makers at a company have done some damn boneheaded thing, something so rock stupid that could only come from never having worked on whatever ground floor the business has. And what can the employees do? Nothing. They have to comply because they don't have a voice, because if they argue, they're fired. If they don't do it, they're fired. THAT is what a union can fix, among tons of other problems. A smart boss is one that listens to his employees when they speak up about problems; a boss working with a union doesn't have a choice. And that's not to say that unions are perfect, like anything else made by humans and run by humans they have flaws. But IMO, problematic representation is better than no representation.
simion314 7y ago
I am not sure you get the result you predicted but 100% you don't get safer products
- airstrike 7y ago
  And arguing over slack / e-mail achieves any better results?
  - simion314 7y ago
    Yes, eventually it will leak to the press that developers at X are arguing if they should ignore pedestrians in the self driving cars because the code is too bad, or colleagues that work on other sections will find the shit that is happening and would intervene. I understand that you are thinking at some stupid politic arguments but I am talking about larger topics like killing drones, self driving cars, law enforcement AI , I want the developers to be able to speak when they see something questionable then leave.
maxlamb 7y ago
I think the point OP was making is that dozens of people died because executives as Boeing “shut down” concerns that some long time engineers had. I’m not sure lives at risk with Google’s products but I think the point is hoping that a half a trillion dollar monopoly will change its ways because lots of employees leave is wishful thinking and might only happen if it results in a catastrophe. Google can replace them easily and regardless a majority of their profit comes from search which only requires a small fraction of their employees to keep operating at profit.
- simion314 7y ago
  >I’m not sure lives at risk with Google’s products Google is experimenting with self driving cars and they are always interested in working for the military or the police. I want the employees to talk if they feel something is not right rather then do the Uber thing and disable the safety because the code was garbage and had too many false positives.
praptak 7y ago
Sounds good, doesn't work. No essential change was ever achieved by boycott. What works is enough people willing to stick their necks out and organize politically.
- airstrike 7y ago
  And which essential change was achieved by internal political battles?
  - praptak 7y ago
    I never said this should be limited to internal battles.

throwawaysea 7y ago

The 'unsafe culture' at Boeing is an overblown fear, IMO. The two crashes on the 737 MAX were both on airlines that are not known for adequate training or maintenance. Everyone got on the "bash Boeing" train while ignoring the reality of what happened. The NY Times finally wrote about it, after numerous articles presenting a one-sided story: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/24/world/asia/lion-air-boeing-indonesia.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/24/world/asia/lion-air-boein... > Crash investigators were presented with photographs supposedly showing that a mandatory test was done after the vane had been replaced. But upon further inspection, investigators concluded the photos were from a different aircraft. > “This is a test that Lion Air was required to do, and they didn’t,” said John Cox, an aviation safety consultant. > If the test had been done, engineers likely would have realized the vane was calibrated incorrectly by 21 degrees. The misalignment would prove fatal because it mistakenly catalyzed Boeing’s anti-stall system, forcing the plane into its final plummet.

simion314 7y ago
Please stop with false information, one of the companies has a good record. The safety concerns are real, documented and were ignored. There are many more issues with the MAX then the one causing the crashes, as an example while trying to patch the current software issue a new software problem was found that delayed the update.
- throwawaysea 7y ago
  What part of my post is false? If you are going to label my comment as false information, the burden is on you to point out explicit falsehoods (not just mere differences of opinion). Your reference to unrelated issues such as the software patch can apply to numerous complex systems in many industries (not just aircraft), and I bet it applies to planes from other manufacturers as well. Your comment seems more like FUD, since it casts doubt in one instance (one aircraft) without a comprehensive understanding and comparison across other comparable aircraft or manufacturers. You can't just take one complex system, scrutinize it, come up with a wish list of things you would want (without knowing the tradeoffs/implications), and then say there is something systematically broken here.

fishnchips 7y ago

> Would you say the same if the Boeing employees that don't like the new unsafe culture should shut up and leave? Absolutely not. And if you leave, at least do not leave quietly lest you end up in jail. But serious as Googlers' misgivings may be, it's hard to compare their concern to what Boeing did.

simion314 7y ago
Google is working on self driving cars and they were planing to work for military, so I would prefer Google employees to speak up then shut up and leave.
frank2 7y ago
>do not leave quietly lest you end up in jail. Are you saying that an employee might be convicted of a crime in the US for not speaking out as he or she quit? If so, I disagree.
- fishnchips 7y ago
  If they quit but keep quiet about suspected criminal activity or negligence then at least in my country they could still be prosecuted.

herostratus101 7y ago

Airplane safety is fairly black-and-white compared to, say, the decision to partner with law enforcement or to censor certain kinds of content on YouTube. Given that Silicon Valley engineers have attitudes that are not broadly representative of the general public, I think it's rather presumptuous for them to operate as moral crusaders within a company.

jrockway 7y ago
I think the difficulty was that it wasn't black and white. You can say "I think MCAS is a danger because it only relies on one sensor and has authority to make the plane uncontrollable" and someone can counter with "MCAS failing looks like and is fixed the same way as any runaway stabilizer trim, every pilot knows how to handle that". Obviously the second hypothetical statement was wrong, but it's hardly "evil" to make that argument.
- simion314 7y ago
  Though from what I read they MCAS had too much authority so it was basically operating "illegally"against regulations.
NikolaeVarius 7y ago
Aircraft safety is the opposite of black and white. Engineering is all about making compromises, in aircraft, you compromise with weight, otherwise, we would be giving every passenger an ejection seat/parachute.
- OnlineGladiator 7y ago
  > Engineering is all about making compromises, in aircraft, you compromise with weight, otherwise, we would be giving every passenger an ejection seat/parachute. You forgot cost. The 737-MAX is fairly well documented to have been pushed by management for the purpose of increasing profits while compromising safety.

gfs78 7y ago

Airplane safety is/must be regulated by laws, not by companies cultures and values. In the case of boeing/uber the problem is the regulators are getting more and more relaxed and/or corrupt.

cma 7y ago
But if it wasn't regulated by laws, would the same thing apply? People should just leave if they don't like it and don't try and rock the boat?
- gfs78 7y ago
  If they want to rock the boat who I am to tell them no to. In these Google cases the problem seems to came from the position they are trying to rock the boat. More as a child rebelling against a parent than as a worker against corporate policies. Problem is they are not as important to Google as a child to its parent, and it´s showing.

dang 7y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21781771 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21781771.