I see this repeated often - blame placed entirely on management and not the workers. Why do you believe that? Do you honestly believe that they have not contributed at least partially to the decline of Boeing? That union protectionism has not affected productivity? That hostile bargaining and strikes hadn’t hurt their finances? Accusing the company of prioritizing greed and blaming the boogeyman of management sounds like a caricature, and not an unbiased perspective.
Often, people try justify high pay for management positions by pointing out the responsibilities that comes with such a position. If that's the case, then it only makes sense to place blame on management when things go sideways. If not, then what exactly is the value that management adds to the company that justifies their high pay?
It's the same thing when people talk about the "risk" of owning a business. At the same time, those same people will advocate dodging accountability for business owners.
If there's no threat of liquidation, fines, bankruptcy... what's the risk? If the fed can't come into your home and take your furniture... what's the risk? Because those workers end up homeless in the case of failure. And the owners just go back to their mansions like nothing happened?
I disagree, it's 100% true. Often conversations about business owners and executives will be derailed to address the "risk" they face, that being the reasoning we should cut them some slack.
In those cases, it quite literally happens in the same breath. Arguing business owners take on risk, and then immediately countering saying we should not hold them accountable.
It's a similar thing you see to the police. When a LEO shoots someone without due cause, people will decry to cut them some slack because their jobs are very risky. I mean, they could die. But there's not very much risk if you shoot someone the first chance you get - before any danger even prevents itself, right? And there's not very much risk if you cannot face jail time for such an action, right?
In order to use this "risk" argument you need to be harsher on the perpetrators. People usually do the opposite when they make such an argument, thereby deconstructing their own argument without realizing it.
>In those cases, it quite literally happens in the same breath.
Perhaps you could show some examples, then. What you describe is completely foreign to my own experience.
>When a LEO shoots someone without due cause
No, that is not when the argument is brought out. Often, however, it's brought out to highlight that there was, in fact, due cause that was not obvious to critics.
>But there's not very much risk if you shoot someone the first chance you get
They don't actually do this, in any remotely ordinary circumstance.
They do shoot people who threaten them - because someone with a knife standing several meters away, who doesn't care about the risk of getting shot, can seriously injure you before you can get off a clear shot with a gun (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill).
>And there's not very much risk if you cannot face jail time for such an action, right?
If you ignore the risk of physical injury or death (also noting that some criminals also carry firearms), then yes, there is not very much risk.
>People usually do the opposite when they make such an argument
You are still not providing anything that resembles evidence.
You're missing the point, the LEO argument is just an example of this phenomenon. I'm not here to actually arguing for or against hypothetical law enforcement crimes. I can't, by the way - I was very careful not to mention any specific circumstances purely so we wouldn't go down this rabbit hole. I know how tempted people get.
> If you ignore the risk of physical injury or death
I didn't. It's really going over your head here.
> evidence
... of what? The phenomenon that people will often talk about risk while also using that definition of risk as justification for why slack should be given? I just did, in two different ways.
But it's a real phenomenon and you can find literally infinite examples. I don't know why you're fighting me on this, to me this is painfully obvious.
People say the same thing about the military. Risky, risking their lives, heros, yadda yadda yadda therefore look past some small crimes. These arguments eat themselves from the inside out.
> I didn't. It's really going over your head here.
You think you didn't, but you did. Again: police don't just shoot people preemptively. They do so when there is a risk of injury or death.
You might not believe their threat assessment is reasonable; but you are not the one trained to understand these situations, and you have presumably not had to negotiate them yourself.
Nobody is saying that the police should be excused for shooting people because they're in a job where they could get shot at. They're saying the police should be excused for shooting people because they had a real reason to believe that the person who was shot would otherwise shoot them first. (Or charge at them with a knife from within 6 metres or so, etc.)
This is not done for the purpose of killing - that is just a frequent consequence of the standard practice to minimize the chance of being the victim. Anything else would be irresponsible.
> I just did, in two different ways.
No, you didn't. You described some forms of argument. You gave no reason to believe that anyone actually presents such arguments.
> I don't know why you're fighting me on this, to me this is painfully obvious.
Because to me, the opposite is painfully obvious. I can recall "literally infinite" examples of people telling me that the discourse worked the way you describe, me looking into it, and me promptly finding that the other person was simply mistaken.
> I was very careful not to mention any specific circumstances purely so we wouldn't go down this rabbit hole.
Which is another way to say that you did not provide evidence.
> Again: police don't just shoot people preemptively. They do so when there is a risk of injury or death.
They most certainly do, otherwise there wouldn't be trials and some cops in jail. Well, there are, so some do. And when those "some" do, then people will defend them via risk. Which DOESN'T WORK if you eliminate risk by preemptive murder.
> Nobody is saying that the police should be excused for shooting people because they're in a job where they could get shot at.
Many, many, many people do say this. They say almost exactly this. There's many examples, I won't list any however because I don't think it matters and I don't want to give you any fuel for a tirade.
> You gave no reason to believe that anyone actually presents such arguments.
How the actual fuck do you expect me to do this? I've talked to people in my life, I've been on Twitter. Hell, I live in Texas and BOTH my parents are Trumpies - I've heard MUCH more insane arguments. For fuck's sake, I've heard arguments on how vaccines cause autism. Not just small little arguments too - many real people I actually know.
You're really, truly, with your entire heart, telling me you've never heard an argument like this? Really? Okay. If that's the case then okay. You win. Jesus Christ talk about difficult.
Management defines the culture the workers operate in and define the policies that they adhere to. Good quality work requires the time and facilities to complete that work and remedy any issues. From what I've read of Boeing they moved to a culture of deadlines over quality. The workers stayed the same but were driven to complete work faster and when a quality issue was raised the policies set by management meant that they were largely ignored. That's management squeeze, not willful worker dereliction.
> I see this repeated often - blame placed entirely on management and not the workers. Why do you believe that?
Because it is management who hire and fire workers, who pays them salary, who says them what to do, who does the quality checks on the work done and so on. If management couldn't get their workers to do a quality work, it is the management's fault. In this case the management should be fired and the company better find more competent managers.
When you place blame, you need to do a causal analysis and ask the question: who could change the outcome and didn't? The workers? Don't make my slippers laugh, the workers could do nothing. While management had all the power, including the power to fire bad workers and to hire better ones. Including the power to force workers into compulsory training courses, including the power to create a system of incentives that would encourage good work, and so on.
> While management had all the power, including the power to fire bad workers and to hire better ones. Including the power to force workers into compulsory training courses, including the power to create a system of incentives that would encourage good work, and so on.
That would be true if there wasn't a union. They place limits on who Boeing can hire and fire and have to agree to any changes in incentives.
Unions just for existing do not get special protections. Contracts and rights are agreed to by both parties. The processes involved in the firing of employees is black and white. Whatever the company agreed to is the rules.
> I see this repeated often - blame placed entirely on management and not the workers. Why do you believe that?
Because between the top management and the workers, one of them are capable of (and do) take major decisions everyday, and the other one can be replaced if someone at the top is having a bad day.
The power and balance in the vast majority of firms isn’t just skewed, it’s extremely skewed. I’m not sure if this is a US-specific thing or what but the difference between say bottle-pissing Amazon drivers and Bezos is ridiculous.
(And no, I’m not a “commie” or anyt specific politically, I just have seen employee owned companies and work-life balance in many places.)
The top comment in this thread highlights the astonishing sums of money the shareholders were taking from the company. If you think the workers are to blame for the state of their finances you are either ignoring the facts or you are in here dishonestly trying to push a narrative.
Management's constant attempts to undermine the union by firing people, outsourcing, moving entire factories and so forth have been more harmful than anything the union has done.
Competence or incompetence is not really relevant. Company as big as Boing gets employees on a bell curve, just like everyone else.
They get average people in a profession and from there, it's on management.
It's management job to put into place system to make employees competent (i.e. trained to efficiently to do the tasks required with a certain quality) and weed out the ones who can't deliver.
There will always be individual failures, but anything over low single digit percentage is a systematic problem = management fault.
> Do you honestly believe that they have not contributed at least partially to the decline of Boeing?
No, because they just do what they're told. If the stuff they do is bad then necessarily the stuff they're told is, too. Therefore, it's management/business' fault. Boeing IS NOT an engineer run company.
> That union protectionism
Literally does not exist in the US, anywhere. We have huge problems with union busting and anti-union propaganda. The union existing and having a drop of bargaining power isn't "protectionism" - your lenses are skews.
> That hostile bargaining and strikes hadn’t hurt their finances?
Uh... this isn't a problem of finances, it's a problem of poor management. Planes falling out of the sky, coverups, lies, stock buy backs. A strike doesn't cause your executives to lie to the media and the FAA, does it?
> boogeyman of management
No management exists. The company does make decisions about its products, strategies, investments, time, etc. Those decisions ultimately decide the trajectory of the company. I don't think that's a boogey man.
> unbiased perspective
Yes, those repeating anti-union propaganda, which has been built up for at least 70 years in the US, are surely the unbiased ones. I don't know what to tell you hear other than - do you hear yourself? If you told me this was a comment from a c-suite exec I'd believe you.
