[playeren]

> The company official said the language used and sentiments expressed in these communications "are inconsistent with Boeing values, and the company is taking appropriate action in response."

Do you think this means:

a) Change the environment that fosters those kinds of messages?

-or-

b) Punish those who wrote those messages?

[dannyw]

Boeing is saying the language used and sentiments expressed are bad.

They're not saying that releasing a plane that employees were sounding safety alarms are about is bad.

[a1369209993]

This. Exactly this. They are literally saying:

> [Sounding safety alarms is] inconsistent with Boeing values, and the company is taking appropriate [ie punitive] action in response [to prevent any alarms on the next unsafe design].

[smcl]

Boeing were dangerously incompetent w.r.t the 777 MAX, but I have to disagree here - this isn't about putting down whistleblowing or dissenting opinions. What they're saying is they are gonna slap some people on the wrist and issue company wide memo saying something to the effect of "Please don't say stupid embarrassing stuff like this in the company chat or over email".

However we are in agreement that this isn't a commitment to fix any of underlying issues that caused this mess.

[a1369209993]

> slap some people on the wrist and issue company wide memo saying something to the effect of "Please don't say stupid embarrassing stuff like this in the company chat or over email".

While that's on the low end of the range of severity I'd expect, I can't help but point out that that is, in fact, punitive action and would, in fact, discourage (albeit probably not prevent) any warnings about the next unsafe design.

[mlyle]

The actions need to really be understood in context.

If people were joking around and using hyperbole to exaggerate the extent of what they saw as problems, and did this often-- as some engineering cultures do-- a slap on the wrist is justified. That kind of banter creates noise that obscures real concerns about lack of safety.

If they were genuinely concerned and are smacked for creating documentation of it, that is super bad.

[NeedMoreTea]

Both, but as a higher priority, c) punish the exec team on whose watch it happened.

Bring back the concept of responsibility. They are paid to be in overall responsibility for anything that happens under their remit.

Time was such a behaviour in the department, or under their leadership would have ended a career. Realising the actions of a lowly engineer or janitor can end their gravy train, they might implement adequate oversight.

[freepor]

Why just end a career? Why not go to jail?

[NeedMoreTea]

Well I did say punish not merely fire. I would expect that to encompass imprisonment and fine, depending on severity. Ending or severely restricting the career and income should be the bonus, lower standard of proof consequence merely for the event happening whilst they're in charge. Separate from a court fine of 5 years salary, all bonuses and share options, or given 3 years in clink. :)

With adequate penalty and frequent enforcement, usual behaviour would change...

[craftinator]

In a system with social capital this would be entirely possible.

[mfkp]

Why not both?

[zentiggr]

Do you honestly expect anything _but_ [punishment for the ones who got outed]?