Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Pfhreak 2122 days ago
I was at Boeing when that plant opened up. I recall it specifically being talked about in hushed tones as a place where there would be no unions, and thus they could hire cheaper labor.

Don't get me wrong, the Everett plant certainly has had issues in the past (there are plenty of signs hanging up about Foreign Object Debris), but the company seems to have targeted cost cutting as priority one.

3 comments

I was there at the same time and I remember the exact same thing. There was a lot of talk about this being used to offset some of the losses caused by any future union strikes and also as leverage when negotiating with the unions.

I also remember that there were consistent ongoing quality issues. Planes from SC would require significant rework when they arrived in Everett.

It's almost like union employees under fair management do a better job or something /s
The auto industry seemed to provide a counterexample, or at least showed that the "management" part was the deciding factor.

If I were Boeing, I'd also be looking into the possibility of sabotage, but it's more likely cost cutting.

Yea I knew Peterbuilt an engineer who talked at how bad the work was at the Nashville/union plant. He watch people get fired for gross negligence, be hired back a month later. There are several fleets who would specifically order trucks from the other two non-union plants.
A lot of your manufacturing is down south because of how hostile it is to unions down here. I know in SC, we have BMW, Volvo and I think Benz along with Boeing on the coast.
I believe the federal circuit there has a much more limited interpretation of the ADA too, which can benefit employers in certain situations.
Companies wanting to operate in places without unions because the labor is cheaper isn't exactly the kind of thing that requires "hushed tones."
It sure is if you are talking about workers rights to unionize, specifically, and how you plan to undercut the existing union.