Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Boeing workers vote to strike

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 578 posts

Re: Boeing workers vote to strike

#71

Post by Rinzler89 »

ncallaway wrote: post #60
blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Yeah I’m sure that was the union’s fault, and not pressure from management to work quickly, cut corners, and akip on quality. Honestly, anyone blaming unions for Boeings quality problems are not someone that anyone should listen to or take seriously when it comes to quality.

>Yeah I’m sure that was the union’s fault, and not pressure from management to work quickly, cut corners, and akip on quality.

The union's job is to fight back against those poor choices from management that negatively impact the workforce and the product delivery. Otherwise what's the point of the union? What value are they adding to the workers if they end up with the same issues as non union labor?

Re: Boeing workers vote to strike

#72

Post by nullindividual »

beaglesss wrote: post #59
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You'll have to break up the FAA first. The certification costs are ungodly, rigid, and the certification process created fascistic interweaving of industry with government Why do you need to break up the FAA to simplify certification?

The golden age of flight had not only competition of manufacture, but competition from consumers and purchasers on risk appetite. It could not emerge under an FAA as we know it. To come anywhere near that you'd need to break up the FAA, as it has a virtual monopoly on violence in enforcing the CFRs here. Let people pick which, if any enforcer they want certifying their airplanes. That is, the FAA suffers from the sam…

The golden age of flight splattered the blood of professionals and innocents alike to write those regulations.

Flight is not for cowboys.

Re: Boeing workers vote to strike

#73

Post by vkou »

beaglesss wrote: post #59
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You'll have to break up the FAA first. The certification costs are ungodly, rigid, and the certification process created fascistic interweaving of industry with government Why do you need to break up the FAA to simplify certification?

The golden age of flight had not only competition of manufacture, but competition from consumers and purchasers on risk appetite. It could not emerge under an FAA as we know it. To come anywhere near that you'd need to break up the FAA, as it has a virtual monopoly on violence in enforcing the CFRs here. Let people pick which, if any enforcer they want certifying their airplanes. That is, the FAA suffers from the sam…

The golden age of flight had ~100x the fatal accident rate that we do today.

No thanks.

Re: Boeing workers vote to strike

#74

Post by Y-bar »

DevX101 wrote: post #18

Defeat for the company or defeat for shareholders? These things are not the same.

Depends on if you are a shareholder for the long terms (many years) or a short-term trader. I don't own stock in Boeing (or any of their main competitors), but when there is a strike like this in a company I hold stock in I generally get more bullish for the long term because it means that:

1. It signals employees still care about the company enough to not just quit and go elsewhere. And employees who care make a better product.

2. Negotiating better benefits generally helps retain the solid "middle class" who make the brunt of the work in a company. It might not entice the "rock-stars" or so, but they generally are not dis-incentivised by their colleagues getting better benefits either.

3. The C-suite gets to know they are not untouchable, this also helps keep them level when answering to the board of directors.

Re: Boeing workers vote to strike

#75

Post by darby_nine »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #45
darby_nine wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We all know boeing won't be "wrecked"; they're too critical for state interests to be allowed to fail. If they're smart they'll either nationalize the company to remove the profit inefficiency or force the company to split to remove the profit inefficiency. Either way, the profit motive and lack of any competition is clearly a national security risk.

> We all know boeing won't be "wrecked"; they're too critical for state interests to be allowed to fail People keep repeating this without context. The auto companies are strategically significant. That didn't prevent them from going bankrupt [1][2]. Wiping shareholders doesn't mean blowing up the factories. I'm increasingly convinced Boeing needs to go bankrupt. It can then shed unprofitable units--through spin-offs…

> The auto companies are strategically significant.

Not really, they're more politically significant than economically critical. I've certainly never owned an american car and never plan to. We'll be fine continuing to rely on foreign companies to produce our vehicles. Foreigners certainly don't want our cars (outside of maybe tesla in the nordics, i guess?). None of this is true for the plane market, or at least not until boeing acquired its current popular reputation of not being very good at making planes (deserved or not)

The fact we bailed out the companies but refused to take ownership should be considered treason. Same for the banks, the car companies, the airline industry we bailed out for more than its entire value, etc etc. completely corrupt and incompetent governance

Re: Boeing workers vote to strike

#77

Post by nottorp »

Rinzler89 wrote: post #71
ncallaway wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I’m sure that was the union’s fault, and not pressure from management to work quickly, cut corners, and akip on quality. Honestly, anyone blaming unions for Boeings quality problems are not someone that anyone should listen to or take seriously when it comes to quality.

>Yeah I’m sure that was the union’s fault, and not pressure from management to work quickly, cut corners, and akip on quality. The union's job is to fight back against those poor choices from management that negatively impact the workforce and the product delivery. Otherwise what's the point of the union? What value are they adding to the workers if they end up with the same issues as non union labor?

Yep, the union does seem to be striking?

Re: Boeing workers vote to strike

#78

Post by nottorp »

beaglesss wrote: post #53
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Glad to see these guys out the job and production moving to the Carolinas Here's an idea: let them compete. Seattle versus North Charleston. I quite literally don't know if I agree with your or not, but that's the point--none of you, I or a dickwad in Chicago or D.C. should be making that call unilaterally. The market should. Split them up and return us to the competition that built America's golden age of aviation…

You'll have to break up the FAA first. The certification costs are ungodly, rigid, and the certification process created fascistic interweaving of industry with government. To break the monopoly, counterintuitively, we have to deregulate Boeing.

The FAA broke itself up already. They allowed Boeing to self certify.

Re: Boeing workers vote to strike

#79

Post by hamilyon2 »

obscuretone wrote: post #69
bsder wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It should be illegal to post articles about strikes without including details on current deal, current offer, and union demands. Getting 96% to vote to go on strike pretty much says that company offer is complete garbage. You probably can't get 96 out of 100 people to agree that the sky is blue. And while I wish that things were a bit more fact heavy, sometimes the sticking point is something really arcane and non-…

The sky is in fact black at the moment. Bit of a green hue towards downtown, regional bank creating the Aurora Desjardins

Black? I am pretty sure it is some shade of grey.

Re: Boeing workers vote to strike

#80

Post by [deleted] »

vkou wrote: post #73
beaglesss wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The golden age of flight had not only competition of manufacture, but competition from consumers and purchasers on risk appetite. It could not emerge under an FAA as we know it. To come anywhere near that you'd need to break up the FAA, as it has a virtual monopoly on violence in enforcing the CFRs here. Let people pick which, if any enforcer they want certifying their airplanes. That is, the FAA suffers from the sam…

The golden age of flight had ~100x the fatal accident rate that we do today. No thanks.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN