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

341–350 of 578 posts

Re: Boeing workers vote to strike

#341

Post by Aunche »

ordu wrote: post #135
blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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…

> 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.

Re: Boeing workers vote to strike

#342

Post by SaintGhurka »

refurb wrote: post #222
naasking wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So stock buy backs were legal before 1982, but companies faced a risk of stock manipulation if they were reckless in how they did it. Sounds like a much better state of affairs.

Really? You think it's bad that the government is explicit in its rules? I think that's a good thing. I'd rather have it be clear to all parties what is acceptable and what isn't, rather that a murky legal framework where you never know if you're breaking the law.

This subject brings up so much rancor that I think you might have missed the possibility that there was no sarcasm intended in the post you responded to.

Re: Boeing workers vote to strike

#344

Post by giraffe_lady »

Nifty3929 wrote: post #340
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #330

In my mind, this is an unalloyed good The practice alone of organizing labor power against owners, irrespective of the demands, given the existing state of the world, is what is needed to show Class solidarity. Simply showing class solidarity in order to kick off other strikes is valuable in and of itself. Y’all really have to understand a general strike is coming. A general strike means the labor class (you most lik…

This is an ancient and universal idea, that has failed to deliver prosperity and growth, and often drives societies that were once flourishing into starvation. Capitalism is the new, cool, unique idea that has actually delivered prosperity for society. Not perfectly evenly, but certainly more evenly than other ideas like socialism, fascism and feudalism.

You're conflating political and economic systems here. Capitalism is fully compatible with fascism. And it emerged out of and is an evolution of manorialism, the economic system used under european feudalism.

Re: Boeing workers vote to strike

#345

Post by double0jimb0 »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #311
jonhohle wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PayPal, Tesla, SpaceX,… how many times does someone “win the lottery” before it’s not actually chance? Not saying anyone can repeat it, or a random IC could leave and succeed, but that space seems ripe for disruption. (Maybe not passenger planes, but cargo with less liability.)

If 90% of startups fail, why would you think winning wasn't mostly chance? Regardless of how many people work hard and grind, you can still fail (and most do, that's just life). Some are more lucky than others, and capital begets capital. Once you've "won" enough, it becomes much harder to lose, even if you make terrible forward decisions and run off the inertia of past wins (Twitter). Bezos built Amazon, but also ha…

Bezos doesn’t know how to build good hardware. Plenty of examples from Amazon. Then add Blue Origin to that track record.

Re: Boeing workers vote to strike

#346

Post by refurb »

SaintGhurka wrote: post #342
refurb wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? You think it's bad that the government is explicit in its rules? I think that's a good thing. I'd rather have it be clear to all parties what is acceptable and what isn't, rather that a murky legal framework where you never know if you're breaking the law.

This subject brings up so much rancor that I think you might have missed the possibility that there was no sarcasm intended in the post you responded to.

That’s why I asked

Re: Boeing workers vote to strike

#347

Post by toomuchtodo »

double0jimb0 wrote: post #345
toomuchtodo wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If 90% of startups fail, why would you think winning wasn't mostly chance? Regardless of how many people work hard and grind, you can still fail (and most do, that's just life). Some are more lucky than others, and capital begets capital. Once you've "won" enough, it becomes much harder to lose, even if you make terrible forward decisions and run off the inertia of past wins (Twitter). Bezos built Amazon, but also ha…

Bezos doesn’t know how to build good hardware. Plenty of examples from Amazon. Then add Blue Origin to that track record.

Sure, but can you not hire people who are good at hardware with billions of dollars of investment? Or, is it culture and an intangible ability to procure and orchestrate great people doing great work that leads to success? Think in systems. If you have the resources, and the physics demonstrate it can be done, the system is not properly configured, no?

Re: Boeing workers vote to strike

#348

Post by onepointsixC »

wetpaws wrote: post #331
jandrese wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On one hand I can't blame any engineer that wants to flee, but on the other Boeing really can't afford any more brain drain. We are already seeing the results of years of forcing experienced but well paid engineers out and outsourcing their jobs. Planes literally falling out of the sky, but some nice fat executive bonuses.

Why it should be the engineers problem?

It isn’t. But Boeing failing and turning the commercial airline market into an Airbus monopoly is bad.

Re: Boeing workers vote to strike

#349

Post by rachofsunshine »

Nifty3929 wrote: post #340
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #330

In my mind, this is an unalloyed good The practice alone of organizing labor power against owners, irrespective of the demands, given the existing state of the world, is what is needed to show Class solidarity. Simply showing class solidarity in order to kick off other strikes is valuable in and of itself. Y’all really have to understand a general strike is coming. A general strike means the labor class (you most lik…

This is an ancient and universal idea, that has failed to deliver prosperity and growth, and often drives societies that were once flourishing into starvation. Capitalism is the new, cool, unique idea that has actually delivered prosperity for society. Not perfectly evenly, but certainly more evenly than other ideas like socialism, fascism and feudalism.

Labor action isn't contrary to a free market. Labor action is precisely labor using its negotiating power in a market to secure concessions, the same way that employers use their market power to secure concessions from employees, customers use their market power to secure concessions from businesses, or businesses use their market power to extract profit.

I'm a business owner. I believe in business, and I like participating in a competitive market. I like that it keeps me honest and forces me to really try to do my job. But that doesn't imply that I have to be hostile to the interests of laborers in principle! They're sticking up for their interests, just as much as I stick up for mine. That's how a market works. And just as with my customers, we can have a mutually beneficial working relationship while still negotiating in the knowledge that we're all adults with some degree of self-interest.

As long as we're working within a system where we don't expect businesses to show loyalty to employees beyond self-interest (and it seems that we are), why should we expect employees to behave any differently? You can't make employment an ethical question for one side and not the other: either we're all in this together (and thus that businesses have a responsibility that Boeing has clearly failed to uphold), or we believe in a ruthlessly competitive market (and labor has every right to play hardball).

Re: Boeing workers vote to strike

#350

Post by ajross »

iancmceachern wrote: post #86

Any Boeing engineers who may be looking for alternate paths, please know that I've known many great aerospace engineers who have made a pivot to medical devices very successfully and many of the best medical devices to come out in recent years are due to such. It seems very different but really it's very similar.

> Any Boeing engineers who may be looking for alternate paths

The strike in question is the machinists' union, engineers aren't involved.

Post reply on HN