281–290 of 637 posts
Most business in the United States is done despite of management, not because of it. The executives lie and BS through all of it, and the soldiers on the ground kill themselves to get things done.
>> Most business in the United States is done despite of management, not because of it. You must be very unhappy in your cubicle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet working from the outside, the NYT can figure out this shit even faster.
The NYT didn’t have to be right, they only had to sell newspapers and clicks. The burden of evidence for publishing a hit piece is much lower than that for making an actual business decision. I’m no fan of Boeing but the truth is, betting your entire business requires a much higher burden of proof than journalism does.
This is totally wrong. The New York Times depends on its reputation for accuracy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love that idea for 401k matching. All the downsides of a pension [1], combined with all the downsides of a 401k[2], with none of the upsides of either! [1] If your employer goes belly up after you retire, you are screwed. [2] Because it's fixed contribution, as opposed to fixed payout, if you lived longer than you planned, you are screwed.
Exactly! We could transition our stock out, but that setup employees with the lovely complication of having to learn about insider training and how to NOT do it...
Generally speaking, the majority of (non DOD) Boeing employees should not be restricted by insider trading; It's often rumored to have broader reach than it does. In order to be an insider, you would need to have direct impact or insight into an unannounced project, corporate, or financial disclosure. It may even take some authority to be able to materially impact delivery deadlines or financials before you're considered an insider.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reminds me of the news coverage of SpaceX’s first landing attempts, where they crashed into the barge and exploded and everyone was like “it’s a failure, it will never work”. Yeah but so much went right. I think it’s just the (well deserved) media narrative Boeing is in now. When you kill hundreds of people and then pretend it wasn’t your fault, you get what’s coming to you.
The obvious difference is that SpaceX's landings were secondary objectives and something that nobody had ever done before. Getting in the proper orbit to the ISS was a primary objective for Starliner and something we've been doing for 20 years.
Former Boeing employee here[1]: I remember when the company decided to do all 401k matching in Boeing stock in 2009. It seemed like a sketchy, borderline unethical way to keep the stock price afloat. All to say I’m happy to have transitioned all my 401k years ago! [1] I worked in the defense industry. Nothing to do with planes: my company was acquired by Boeing and operated relatively independently.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ...single-aisle monoculture makes flying miserable. What is it that people expect when they say flying is miserable? I expect safety, which is why I'll never get on a 737 MAX. Other than that, I just put sandwiches and snacks in my pocket, fill my water bottle, and in X hours I'm thousands of miles away. Air travel is actually pretty amazing.
I expect to be able to sit in my seat without having my knees crushed? How about that for a start?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/20/business/boeing-dreamline... > Safety lapses at the North Charleston plant have drawn the scrutiny of airlines and regulators. Qatar Airways stopped accepting planes from the factory after manufacturing mishaps damaged jets and delayed deliveries. > Less than a month after the crash of the second 737 Max jet, Boeing called North Charleston employees to an urgent meeting. The company…
> > Less than a month after the crash of the second 737 Max jet, Boeing called North Charleston employees to an urgent meeting. The company had a problem: Customers were finding random objects in new planes. > Turns out trying to squash the unions by moving to a different state helps show why the unions existed... You think that the existence of unions are the reason why they didn't have these problems in Seattle? No…
Former Boeing employee here[1]: I remember when the company decided to do all 401k matching in Boeing stock in 2009. It seemed like a sketchy, borderline unethical way to keep the stock price afloat. All to say I’m happy to have transitioned all my 401k years ago! [1] I worked in the defense industry. Nothing to do with planes: my company was acquired by Boeing and operated relatively independently.
I love that idea for 401k matching. All the downsides of a pension [1], combined with all the downsides of a 401k[2], with none of the upsides of either! [1] If your employer goes belly up after you retire, you are screwed. [2] Because it's fixed contribution, as opposed to fixed payout, if you lived longer than you planned, you are screwed.
Sidenote: It's laughable when companies say they think options are a better choice for the employee than a 401k match.