5 ms·

What a reductive attitude. If your planes fall from the sky because a single employee is negligent. The ones to blame isn’t the worker, the union or the state.

• beaeglebeached 3y ago
  What a reductive attitude. Nah not just one negligent worker. Many, including QC staff.
• hinkley 3y ago
  This also sounds like someone in the New Boeing management chain. A lot of these culture problems were already evident during the 787 program, which is when MD’s mismanagement started to fester. And when the hardon for union busting first came to my attention.
• ethbr1 3y ago
  > The ones to blame isn’t the worker, the union or the state. It’s your business that has key deficiencies in implementing safety. I don't think you're charitably reading parent. Sometimes, the employee is the problem. And sometimes, union contracts preclude changing processes (or make change unnecessarily burdensome) to improve outcomes. Introducing another party into agreements doesn't come free. I'm as pro-union as anyone around here... but it is another level of bureaucracy. And sometimes, protecting "our people" can include not letting go people who should be let go (e.g. decreasing headcount in assembly to hire more professional QA people). That said, solutions do need to come from all levels, and I think unions do provide a necessary counter-pressure to management deciding only employees need to bear the brunt of change.
  • shagie 3y ago
    > where certain difficult to fire union parasites have a stranglehold > where such fatally negligent parasitic workers can be easily shit canned How charitable of a read does one need to give a comment that uses pejorative and hyperbolic language without providing any substantive refutation?
    • beaeglebeached 3y ago
      [flagged]
      • throw4847285 3y ago
        [flagged]
    • ethbr1 3y ago
      Forums improve through ignoring hyperbolic language, not responding to it.
      • acdha 3y ago
        Forums improve by rejecting rude and deceptive language - as Gen. Morrison said, the standard you walk past is the standard you accept.
        • ethbr1 3y ago
          Agree to disagree. IMHO, there are more people who thrive on internet conflict than thrive on being ignored. It takes self control, but walking past the problem is sometimes the more effective solution. "Man, that asshole on the Internet disagreed with me. I'm going to write a detailed rebuttal of why they're the asshole." vs. "Hunh, I wonder why I occasionally get down voted and no one ever responds to me? And also, the responses I do get are a lot nicer in tone than mine..."
          • acdha 3y ago
            You’re right that there is a challenge about giving attention when that’s what they’re seeking. I generally prefer either flagging (worse cases) or up-voting the one person who left a “dude, not cool” reply so they get clear community feedback.
  • zettabomb 3y ago
    Perhaps the worker is at fault, but in (good) aerospace companies one person's mistake cannot lead to a bad unit going out the door. At the very least, two people need to be wrong in the same way - but more likely, several people would need to miss the problem. That being said, "operator error" as a reason for a problem is heavily discouraged (at least in official reports). Rather, it's typical to blame a human factors issue, commonly one of the "dirty dozen" [0]. I couldn't say exactly which ones are present at Boeing but frankly, from the public reports almost all of them sound applicable. With this in mind, process change is the only appropriate remedy, regardless of what the union thinks. I've never heard any union people get mad at something that improves their job though. [0] https://skybrary.aero/articles/human-factors-dirty-dozen https://skybrary.aero/articles/human-factors-dirty-dozen