4 ms·

Boeing moved a lot of their staff to South Carolina to avoid the negligent union parasites who assembled the max in Washington. The 787 made in SC isnt having

Boeing moved a lot of their staff to South Carolina to avoid the negligent union parasites who assembled the max in Washington. The 787 made in SC isnt having this widespread a problem. You can't look at just the Sound to calculate their safety staff changes.

whoknowsidont 3y ago
1. QA issues almost shut down 787 production a few years ago (~2019), all stemming from its Carolina based operations. 2. The 787 is an older airplane than the current hot topic. >negligent union parasites This perspective is so tired and it's quite frankly exhausting to deal with. Please reconsider your perspective and opinion on this matter, fairly new account.
- chmod775 3y ago
  I'll add to that: 3. Pretty much all of Airbus is unionized, vs. only 1/3rd at Boeing. If "unions bad", Airbus aircraft should have had dozens more major issues in the previous decades.
  - beaeglebeached 3y ago
    That's a different union, what's your point? Unions aren't inherently negligent or parasitic. What's telling is I describe one bad one and you assume all are described that way, which is 'tiring' presumption that's exhausting to deal with that i hope will be reconsidered. It's like you criticize one negligent union, the woodwork comes out to protect the bad apple.
    - whoknowsidont 3y ago
      You: Does the phrase "negligent union parasites" refer to one union or is it applicable to many different unions? ChatGPT: The phrase "negligent union parasites" is a derogatory and generalized statement that is not specific to any particular union. Instead, it seems to be a broad and negative characterization that could be directed towards members or aspects of various unions. It's important to note that such language is highly biased and does not reflect an objective or fair assessment of unions or their members. Unions can vary widely in their practices, effectiveness, and the satisfaction of their members, and like any large organization, they may have both strengths and weaknesses. It's always more constructive to address specific concerns or issues rather than using generalized negative labels.
      - beaeglebeached 3y ago
        You intentionally shortened 'the negligent union parasites who assembled the max' which explicitly tailored to the union who assembled the max. The fact you left out the qualifiers says it all. If I put something like 'the nasty Americans who sold slaves' into chatGPT but cut off 'who sold slaves' you'd get the same sort of inaccurate output.
        whoknowsidont 3y ago
        You're intentionally being disingenuous to avoid talking about point #1 in my response to you.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    - chmod775 3y ago
      If you use emotionally charged language like "parasites", don't be surprised people find meaning beyond the most literal interpretations of what you say. To avoid being misunderstood, explain how those quality issues arose from something that is attributable to the union, instead of simply calling their workers negligent and parasites.
acdha 3y ago
> negligent union parasites This provocative language severely undercuts your point, especially because the fatal problem with the MAX was the designed-in MCAS system and management decisions to hide it & hush up the problems they knew about years before it killed hundreds of people.
- beaeglebeached 3y ago
  If that's your angle your most direct attack would have been questioning GGPs criticism of the Quality Inspection staff. It's telling you severely undercut your argument by searching child nodes of a parent thread for your pet disagreement rather than your true contention against GGP that assembly quality control wasn't the issue. That is, the whole predication of GGP was quality inspection was a factor, which you baffling instead chose to only argue against here in selected predicated children (of course we probably know why).
  - acdha 3y ago
    Common knowledge is not “searching child nodes” - I mentioned MCAS because that’s what caused all of the deaths so far and it was due to poor management decisions. There’s similarly no indication that any of the safety issues in the news currently have anything to do with the workforce, and we know that could not be the case because this is a failure of the quality control system setup by Boeing’s management, not the workers. It’s hardly novel to note that a failure like this is a systemic problem - Deming was talking about that in regards to WWII manufacturing!
    - beaeglebeached 3y ago
      You had no issue with the shift quality inspection mention until the sanctity of the assembling unions were questioned, then magically your argument appears. Your aim is transparent. We know why you didn't attack the quality inspection number argument, even though it's the parent generalized counter to your position.
      - 3y ago
kermatt 3y ago
Are unions forcing Boeing to perform less QA? Or are investors, who would use the term “parasites”?

whoknowsidont 3y ago

1. QA issues almost shut down 787 production a few years ago (~2019), all stemming from its Carolina based operations. 2. The 787 is an older airplane than the current hot topic. >negligent union parasites This perspective is so tired and it's quite frankly exhausting to deal with. Please reconsider your perspective and opinion on this matter, fairly new account.

chmod775 3y ago
I'll add to that: 3. Pretty much all of Airbus is unionized, vs. only 1/3rd at Boeing. If "unions bad", Airbus aircraft should have had dozens more major issues in the previous decades.
- beaeglebeached 3y ago
  That's a different union, what's your point? Unions aren't inherently negligent or parasitic. What's telling is I describe one bad one and you assume all are described that way, which is 'tiring' presumption that's exhausting to deal with that i hope will be reconsidered. It's like you criticize one negligent union, the woodwork comes out to protect the bad apple.
  - whoknowsidont 3y ago
    You: Does the phrase "negligent union parasites" refer to one union or is it applicable to many different unions? ChatGPT: The phrase "negligent union parasites" is a derogatory and generalized statement that is not specific to any particular union. Instead, it seems to be a broad and negative characterization that could be directed towards members or aspects of various unions. It's important to note that such language is highly biased and does not reflect an objective or fair assessment of unions or their members. Unions can vary widely in their practices, effectiveness, and the satisfaction of their members, and like any large organization, they may have both strengths and weaknesses. It's always more constructive to address specific concerns or issues rather than using generalized negative labels.
    - beaeglebeached 3y ago
      You intentionally shortened 'the negligent union parasites who assembled the max' which explicitly tailored to the union who assembled the max. The fact you left out the qualifiers says it all. If I put something like 'the nasty Americans who sold slaves' into chatGPT but cut off 'who sold slaves' you'd get the same sort of inaccurate output.
      - whoknowsidont 3y ago
        You're intentionally being disingenuous to avoid talking about point #1 in my response to you.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
  - chmod775 3y ago
    If you use emotionally charged language like "parasites", don't be surprised people find meaning beyond the most literal interpretations of what you say. To avoid being misunderstood, explain how those quality issues arose from something that is attributable to the union, instead of simply calling their workers negligent and parasites.

acdha 3y ago

> negligent union parasites This provocative language severely undercuts your point, especially because the fatal problem with the MAX was the designed-in MCAS system and management decisions to hide it & hush up the problems they knew about years before it killed hundreds of people.

beaeglebeached 3y ago
If that's your angle your most direct attack would have been questioning GGPs criticism of the Quality Inspection staff. It's telling you severely undercut your argument by searching child nodes of a parent thread for your pet disagreement rather than your true contention against GGP that assembly quality control wasn't the issue. That is, the whole predication of GGP was quality inspection was a factor, which you baffling instead chose to only argue against here in selected predicated children (of course we probably know why).
- acdha 3y ago
  Common knowledge is not “searching child nodes” - I mentioned MCAS because that’s what caused all of the deaths so far and it was due to poor management decisions. There’s similarly no indication that any of the safety issues in the news currently have anything to do with the workforce, and we know that could not be the case because this is a failure of the quality control system setup by Boeing’s management, not the workers. It’s hardly novel to note that a failure like this is a systemic problem - Deming was talking about that in regards to WWII manufacturing!
  - beaeglebeached 3y ago
    You had no issue with the shift quality inspection mention until the sanctity of the assembling unions were questioned, then magically your argument appears. Your aim is transparent. We know why you didn't attack the quality inspection number argument, even though it's the parent generalized counter to your position.
    - 3y ago

kermatt 3y ago

Are unions forcing Boeing to perform less QA? Or are investors, who would use the term “parasites”?