99 replies
18h13m
I'm just going to take this story at face value, there's an infinite number of alternate explanations that I'd be powerless to talk about.
I've had my own (thankfully brief) moments where I've thought about suicide just from the perception that my coworkers, my bosses, the entire world, just does not care about doing the right thing.
Mr Barnett worked for the same company for over three decades and physically watched it stop caring about building airplanes. I know that can take a toll, and the stress of martyring yourself to let everyone else know has to be intense.
How did you overcome this?
Humanity has had people who did not care about doing the right thing since forever, and still we thrived. As long as someone is doing the right thing, we're on the right track.
Relevant video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mScpHTIi-kM
It helps to give power to people who care about doing the right thing, instead of to people who don't care. Democracy tends towards the former, but capitalism tends towards the latter.
I would rather say democracy brings people into positions of power who are experts in pretending to do the right thing. But maybe I am to skeptical.
No, your skepticism is warranted. Democracy tries to select for people doing the right thing, but of course people interested in power will try to game the system by pretending to do the right thing.
If this was true, wouldn't democracy improve standard school curriculum so the general public at least has a chance at being able to choose quality leadership, see through the incessant lying/untruthfulness and misinformation of politicians and the media/journalists, have the ability to at least sometimes think of things from an absolute (what is maybe possible, were we to try) rather than relative perspective, etc, instead of being led around by their noses like oblivious if perhaps well meaning schoolchildren by these people?
Yes. And they do. The functioning ones, at least. Corrupt democracies obviously don't, but that's the nature of corruption. But I'm pretty sure the best education systems are generally found in democracies.
Do "democracy", "functioning", "obviously", "don't", "is/am/are", have precise, useful and non-misinformative meanings in this context?
In other important fields (anything involving money for example, or programming), do we sometimes discuss things accurately, and consider things with respect to what is or may be possible, and (actually, objectively) true (basically: pursue optimality)? Might it be at least plausibly beneficial to consider applying that rigour to evaluating and designing our democracy?
Only if all the political parties benefit from people being able to make good judgements. If you have a party that benefits from an uninformed or misinformed public then it's significantly easier to lead them around through fear and lies than it is to govern well. Once they gain power they can reduce education spending, meaning they have more people they can direct more easily. Meaning they can get more power, and repeat the cycle.
If this is true in a two party system, would it not be logical to expect that the party that does not want to exploit an ignorant population would be directing significant attention and resources to educate the public while they hold power (and engaging in non-stop rhetoric on the matter at all times), which if all goes well could gain the support of the educated, permanently?
I sometimes wonder if people have somehow been conditioned to not think about this topic with the seriousness it deserves. I wonder, if we were to search through various academic literature about the nature of humans, might we find some theories about how it may be possible to pull something like this off?
I think that’s right. It’s hard to know from a distance “they are definitely doing the right thing” so the appearance of doing the right thing is valued. Then, as a politician, appearing to do the right thing is sufficient and then pretending to do the right thing is often cheaper/higher output per unit of input, so pretending is rewarded.
The problem is not democracy (everyone getting an equal vote) but representative democracy (everyone getting a vote on a person once every N years who then gets the power to do what they want which they hopefully did not lie about in order to get those votes).
Delegation (everyone getting an equal vote on all issues but being able to designate someone else to vote on their behalf on any given issue without forfeiting the right to vote directly on other issues) does not suffer this problem and is arguably more democratic.
Additionally certain forms of representative democracy make this problem worse like first-past-the-post voting resulting in strategic voting, i.e. voting not for the person you think best represents your interests but most likely to win while still representing some of your interests, encouraging politicians to do the bare minimum and avoid taking strong stances on divisive issues to remain "electable".
The problem is that representative democracy centralizes power in a ruling class (sometimes literally, due to nepotism and dynastic reputations) whereas delegation maintains decentralized power while allowing for that power to be temporarily centralized (e.g. many people delegating to the same individual) but always with the understanding that everyone is free to reclaim their power by withdrawing it from their delegate on a case by case basis. In Germany a variant of this was promoted by the Pirate Party under the label "liquid democracy" - although they of course heavily focused on a possible technological implementation of it rather than promoting the idea itself first.
I've been thinking about something similar. Before the internet, this sort of system would be extremely impractical, and representative democracy is a pretty obvious choice, given the limitations of the time. But now, with the internet, it's a lot easier to handle this in a fluid way with little friction.
The only downside might be that deep discussions of nuanced topics between the delegates might be useless if most votes ignore the discussion. Compromise might get a lot harder, and nuance and depth might be lost. On the other hand, it might also kill corporate lobbying. It's worth a try, and definitely an improvement over first-past-the-post systems and those where politicians are bought by corporate interests.
That reminds me of Bruce Schneier's notion of security theater [1]. Implementing ineffective measures that give a feeling of being the right thing on superficial view, in security or elsewhere. Populism has understood that thoroughly.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater
There need to be heavy consequences. You used to be ostracized, at least for some short period of time and in some scenarios, for selfish behaviour. Now, it seems like we approve of and even encourage douchebags because everyone's gotta get theirs.
In this situation I don’t think you can attribute it to capitalism because Boeing is a defacto monopoly. Capitalism should lead to competition. Competition should lead to alternatives when one of the market participants has quality control issues.
But doesn't that either disprove capitalism as an realistic working system or make an argument that the state have an obligation to protect the market by destroying large corporations before they become dominant.
A lot of the traditional critiques of capitalism have been that it will inevitable degrade back into mercantilism if the capitalist are not challenged by an democratic state and functional trade unions, but alowed to merge into large powerfull entities like google, Boeing, microsoft and Facebook.
There are a couple of ways to look at it:
1. If another player(s) are able to start and freely operate as a competitor then talented engineers will have more options for employment and each entity will have to compete on both price AND quality in order to win business. This requires continued investments.
2. If the original player is able to use regulatory frameworks, lobbying and other tactics to enforce a monopoly, then the state has a duty to break them up to ensure competition.
Option 1 is more free market where the problem solves itself. Option 2 involves use of the government to both create and resolve the problem.
I don’t personally take issue with either because the solution is still competition. Whether Lockheed, SpaceX, a Boeing breakup or some company we haven’t heard of gives it to us isn’t a big concern. We just need competition.
We all know that the Boeing mess will end up with everyone involved in creating the mess walking away richer as the state goes in an cover whatever bill to keep boeing from collapsing as the alternative will be for non-american companies to take over the entire commercial airoplane manufacturing sector.
The problem with the just more competition argument is that it never actually works once a market reach a broken state it never self correct as too many people is going to be affected for that to be allowed to happen, which is exactly how mercantilism keeps creeping back, as the nation state behind it falls into the trap that protecting whats working is preferable to allowing the chaos of creative destruction to take down an entire sector of the nations economy.
It can work as long as we're willing to let companies fail. Typically, a huge company shouldn't fail quickly, it should slowly downsize as it loses revenues to a competitor while it has time to react.
The government stepping in to just hand out money will preserve the broken status quo because the failure incentive has been removed.
Potential sudden failures due to outside factors like the collapse of the banking system are certainly different situations though.
Well, there's Airbus who compete. Everyone would probably be switching to them if they weren't sold out like ten years ahead.
Only in a free market. Very few markets are truly free. And large concentrations of capital tends to make markets unfree.
Unfortunately, "should" is doing some heavy lifting here...In reality, the constant requirement for MORE profit makes it so that every aspect of business or production, including quality control, is a slider conflicted with profit, and sacrificed until it needs to be corrected, as little as possible.
How did you arrive at this conclusion? The earliest versions of democracy used sortition for selection and thus couldn't account for doing the right thing. And of course we all know about the "tyranny of the majority" so I wonder why you believe democracy is somehow biased to selecting "people who care about doing the right thing".
Democracy represents the will of the people, who, in general tend to care about morality and doing the right thing (although of course they can be misled and manipulated). Capitalism tends towards maximising profit, which often comes at the cost of doing the right thing.
Because people are. Why would something be considered "the right thing" if there weren't people believing it?
I realise that Trump campaigning explicitly on doing the wrong thing and still being popular, would seem to contradict this, but he's an outlier, and apparently many of his supporters still somehow believe that whatever he's doing is somehow right. Of course they've been misled and manipulated, but that's the big vulnerability of democracy (although it's also possible in every other system).
This isn't a given. History has lots of examples where a majority of people do not care about morality or doing the right thing, and in fact use their voting power to elect similar-minded leaders. Your post even contains a perfect example, but he is not an outlier.
Most democratic countires have capitalist style manufacturing industries so I'm not sure that holds. Non capitalist attemots to make planes haven't gone that well.
Though you can regulate capitalism better. Encourage founders to run the things rather than buy out guys, have better trade unions and so on.
I suspect a false dichotomy. What is a concrete example of something undemocratic about capitalism?
There is capitalism proper and there is absurdly leveraged subsidized speculative financial managerial capitalism.
There is always nuance on the real world. Things can’t be explained anymore in the terms of XIX century Marxism. If Marx were alive today probably he would completely rewrite Das Kapital.
Quit
+1 for quitting. This can be life saving. Finding new purpose then becomes possible.
The probable with quitting is that you can’t change the company from within anymore.
The idea that an employee can change a company from within is fantastical thinking.
It depends on your position and on the company. There are situations where you can have impact, in which case you should definitely use that. There have been plenty of cases where employees did seriously change corporate policies, but that's usually either in small companies or in companies where employees band together. And often the only impact you can have is to quit and take your skills to a more responsible company.
I've found (in <200~ employee companies) well structured exit interviews to be the best way to change a company from within. What better way to express your disapproval than by severing ties?
Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people:
First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization.
Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself.
The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization.
If you want to change the company from within then you are almost certainly dedicated to the goals of the organization and they are falling short, but it is loyalty to the organization itself that gets you clout. So in order to change the company, you first have to do the thing that you want to change, like cutting corners to meet a deadline. Only after you've kissed the ring will you be given power. This means that unless you are able to perform a revolution or coup within the company (maybe by unionizing), you will always be subordinate to its rotting fish head. If you want to change the company, the best way you can do that is by joining a competitor with better leadership and out-competing or being that leadership at a competitor.
Being a subordinate to people you don't respect is going to demoralize you, demotivate you, disempower you, and make you lose respect for yourself until you cannot function as a person.
CGPGrey's summary of the dictators handbook is also quite relevant: https://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/rules-for-rulers
If you want to make a change, your only option is to get into a position of power, be subject to the same corruptive forces as the incumbent, and choose to be responsible instead of selfish, which is fundamentally an act of self sacrifice. His discussion of the video is way more thought provoking than the original video itself, IMHO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILvD7zVN2jo
Attempting to do so is almost always a fools errand. Unless you have an outsized voice for your position then you will never actually turn a company around and attempting to do so will only add to your burden and worsen your situation.
Missing a /s here for sure, no?
I mean, you kinda glossed over 1/3 of the issue... how do you quit “the entire world”? I think the person asking for advice wanted a real answer for “how can one deal with this difficulty”, especially because in the work situation, a new job won’t necessarily make any difference in terms of the internal struggles.
Maybe dealing with 2/3 of the question is enough to tame suicidal thoughts.
You don't need to quit entire world, just the part that is toxic to you and poisons your life. You owe it to yourself and your family much much more than those sweet dollars that will kill ya (and nobody will see them anyway) or make you an old sour toxic fart.
If you are obsessed about quality, don't work at QA at big MBA-run corporations, just don't, thats a place for career-chasing folks. Find a place that appreciates and values your, or change your job altogether.
I know it sounds harsh but just look at this topic where it can and very often leads to (as long as the story checks, and nobody here actually knows).
The short answer: you can’t, but you can change which parts of the world you actively engage with.
As someone on a long journey that seems highly relevant to this thread, getting help via therapy is one of the most important things I’ve done for myself.
A job that has sufficient problems and insane levels of stress can make the rest of the world look…different. Quitting my job gave me the mental capacity to find and see aspects of the world around me that are not worth quitting.
It has given me the space to recenter my life on things that support me, and to regain some optimism about what I can do with my life more broadly.
Quitting a toxic environment is an important first step. There are good places left. Good people to work for. Different ways to live life.
Choosing suicide is often related to a deep belief that there are no options left. This is often a result of compromised thinking based on intensely difficult situations/experiences that make it extremely hard to see beyond the current situation. I’ve had periods of dark thinking that I’ve since learned how to manage, and one of the most important things for me was getting a broader perspective on what was happening (and thus possible) outside of my own sphere.
Not OP, but for me it was recognition that this perception is my own problem to solve, that the vast majority of the entire world is trying to do the right thing by their own perception, and that I lack enough context to be the judge. Which isn't to say there are no bad actors, but right about the time you think everybody but you is wrong, it's worth taking a step back and reevaluating.
This is hard, but typically, it happens when their interest doesn’t lead to the same decision as “the right thing.” This might not be inherently wrong: if you have a family who depends on you, keeping your job and making money is a morally valid choice.
What you want is for people to frequently see “doing the right thing” as the same as acting is what they see as their own interest: if being kind and polite gets you allies at work, and that’s how you get heard, respected promoted, or find a job, then people will be kind.
Things like cost-cutting to the point where there are legitimate risks to life are hard to find; therefore, people see others cost-cutting and getting promoted because they “stayed within budget” but (within their limited direct observation) never sanctioned. Engineers see project leaders getting away with it, but there are not good reputation mechanisms individualized enough: it’s “project managers always push for the cheapest…” Therefore, any PM who tries to go against the grain faces both prejudice and sanctions for not cutting costs.
You can implement reviews, promotions and reputation mechanisms that encourage behaviors that align short-term personal interest with the long-term benefit of the larger organization and stakeholders, but it’s really hard and non-trivial. Large organizations are far less efficient than they could be because of all the self-interested rent-seeking behavior, but the economies of scale are so strong that it doesn’t matter.
I see only one reasonably acceptable alternate explanation.
He either committed suicide or was suicided by someone at Boeing terrified about what would happen to them in jail.
Or killed by a nation state that thrives on creating conflict by amplifying two sided situations that lead to increased polarization and more instability… the problem with speculation is it’s just that speculation… I’m going to wait and see
How would a nation state "thrive" on assassinating this person?
May I ask if you live in the U.S.? I have the impression that a lot of people there think that other nations revolve around destroying the U.S.
There are a lot of reports of Putin actively interfering to destabilize the west, and also reports in places like the NYTs about the US expanding bases in Ukraine to provoke Russia into the war. These aren’t Twitter rants, they’re in our mainstream “big” media outlets.
World leaders have way too much on their plate to be personally involved in assassinating random foreign citizens for high-degree political effects.
If you see this headline, and story, and immediately think of Putin, that is an unhealthy level of conspiratorial thinking. There is literally no evidence to support this line.
I don't think anyone actually believes Putin personally organises many individual operations in foreign countries. You're just getting hung up on a common shortcut: "Putin" means "someone under Putin's (not even direct) command" here.
I'm definitely not saying that's what happened here (I find it highly unlikely), but if a nation state did do that, there could be a desire to sow additional mistrust of a major US company.
Edit: this is just because someone asked what a hypothetical motive could be
You can say "the USA" by name, it's OK.
They were actually referencing Russia, I'm pretty sure.
I don't know, if one counts interference by the number of puppet governments created I know which of this pair would come out on top. And usually the installation of a puppet government sends a country on a downward spiral that's hard to recover from. See: Haiti, Iraq, Egypt.
“I’m not going to speculate but here is the most wild and unfounded bit of speculation I can think of…”
"That's the problem with speculation (...)", which is: it's used to discredit the most plausible explanations.
It's poisoning the well when others are arguing in good faith with reasonable explanations.
"The problem with speculation is" that i'ts used to discredit the most plausible explanations.
Sure they did. While we're talking tall conspiracy theories - ill bet Biden had Navalny killed too for the same reason /s
Still waiting for Epstein...
Seriously though, I've watched way too many movies where there is a staged suicide to not be biased against a story like this.
There is no way we'll ever know what happened unless there is a trial with a lot of non circumstantial evidence presented.
Ah yes, a rival nation would want a whistleblower that brings bad press on their rival to be silenced right before further hearings. Funny how that works out in Boeing's favor more than anyone else.
Wait and see for what exactly?
Somehow, most people fail to see the obvious: The ongoing FAA audits at both, Spirit Aerospace and Boeing (so far it looks horrible based on initial reporting) will identify each and every single verifiable whistleblower claim anyways.
So no, despite the general retaliation against whistleblowers out of princial (for the record, that alone is illegal and should be punished a lot harder and more often), Boeing as a company or individual employees have nothing to gain here.
Funny how a place full of rather smart, educated and curious people like HN collectively fail to see that one, very simple, fact.
Why do you think this FAA audit will not be corrupted?
To come down to the general quality of discusion: reasons.
On a more serious note: Reporting states that Boeing and Spirit failed a third of their audits, so there is that. Also, FAA stopped Boeing from expanding their 737 MAX capacity. Also also, EASA can audit them as well (and very well might, deoending on what findings the FAA audits have; same as the FAA can audit Airbus in Europe).
But hey, if you think up even bigger, broader and deeper conspiracies necessary to make the initial obe believable, I cannot help you, or anyone.
Not the first time I think about quitting this place, for a couple of months now, discussion quality ain't any better than then comment section of my local newspaper. And thus really not worth the time.
Judging by the comment thread here, I believe discussions on HN would improve if you follow thru and stick to your local newspaper.
Upvote for the “also also” statement
Here’s a question for you: why do we punish people who have already committed a crime?
As a deterrence. This may as well be making an example of a whistleblower to signal potential future whistleblowers to stay silent.
That's the whole point. And the reason why retaliation against whistleblowers ia mostly illegal. Proving reprisal actions can be so difficult so that it amounts to retribution itself.
All the reason more to honor those few brave souls who do it, I know I propably wouldn't. And claiming this particular one was killed is absolutely not doing that.
What greater honor than to have Justice ultimately done, and the Truth be set free? My wager: Boeing council did everything they could to try to turn things around on him, and the poor bastard in that moment, exhausted, at mental wits end, believed them. My guess is the answer will be in the transcripts as long as Boeing doesn't get them redacted/sealed.
As long as our court system is tilted in the direction of those that can afford to more effectively fund gaslighting the populace, we'll continue to see tragedies like this.
I found it even funnier that this can be said about your post.
You could have just made your point; you didn't have to end it with "everyone is dumb except me"
And he not only watched the company fail spectacularly, in several of those cases those failures were connected to deaths, which I imagine he could feel personally responsible for not preventing, even if the corporate machine is really where the responsibility lies.
Table stakes for QA. It would have been worse because he reported and escalated these things just to end up having his department butchered further.
I still don't see a snap happening until after the testimony was over.
Those depositions are extremely stressfull. Add in years if not decades of emotional stress, prior. So yes, that can cause depression and can lead to suicide.
Another case where this happened was Therabis Edit: Theranos, obviously (my Pixel 7 keyboard and I won't become close friends any time soon): one of their lead scientists, who very much opposed cheating and their approach, developed a depression because of that and him being completely sidelined. He committed suicide the day before his scheduled depossition in a patent case.
Both cases are tragic, as is every suicide. Just because his death is convenient, doesn't mean in it was foul play...
Do you mean Theranos? Therabis seem to be CBD weed for dogs, which I deeply hope has not caused any deaths.
Caninabis would have been a better name.
I hope you don't mind me stealing this
So the guy goes on for years being an outspoken whistleblower telling his story to anyone that would listen, and decides while in his hotel waiting for his deposition that now would be the best time to end it and not move forward with holding Boeing accountable.
Occam's razor isn't pointed in the direction you think it is.
I mean, you are welcome to believe that, but if I was a betting man (or had money to bet), I doubt the company had him killed.
Corporate malfeasance, even that kills people, is rarely likely to put people in jail and executives are still likely to end up wealthy. Conducting the most obvious corporate assassination possible under extreme public scrutiny would lead to criminal prosecution of individuals that would definitely result in prison time.
Meanwhile, suicide is extremely rarely logical, and people who end there often were anywhere from having their entire future ahead of them to being amidst some of their most profound success.
Please share how you managed with this. I’ve been here for a few years - since I lost my wife - and some days I can barely hang on.
I have some experience with this. My advice is that these episodes come in waves and thus a simple yet vital rule has literally kept me alive: don't do it; this will pass. That plus therapy and a brief stint on antidepressants swung me from suicidal ideation to optimism.
I do think you have to watch your environment too. Just like alcoholics don't typically hang out in bars, we shouldn't hang out in places/jobs that depress us.
All of this is easier to say than do. I wish you the best.
Thank you. I am unable to find a therapist, and I was unable to manage with antidepressants. My mechanism right now is "see if you still feel this way a week from now" which - so far - helps. It isn't so much that I changed my mind, but more that I understand that there are people that depend on me being around.
Job is indeed a major factor. I don't currently work in a great place - it is generally a rather toxic place - and age-discrimination is, like most of the industry, rife. Pushing 54 it is hard to find a new gig, especially in this market, which doesn't help at all. After 30 years working at the forefront of this industry solving some of the hardest problems around, my skills, experience, and insights are just no longer required.
Life circumstances have left me without any kind of options for retirement, early or otherwise, so this is me for the rest of my life; I'm likely to die behind my keyboard. I'd rather go out on my own terms, watching the sun set behind the sea.
Well what i can say is that there's always the possibility that you find true happiness somewhere you don't expect. It's gotta be somewhere you don't expect cause otherwise we'd have it by now! And since you can't expect it, you can't forsee it. But it's there, waiting for its moment.
I came close a couple times but I held on and eventually found things. One thing that keeps me on is wanting to fix things. It can be difficult to witness the ugliness of the world in perfect detail through the internet, but i believe it's actually better than it ever has been, and it's only improved because people like me decided to make it that way. You're just past 50 and you've worked some incredibly important jobs, corporate culture feels dime a dozen these days but that doesn't mean anything about your actual self worth. I can't even imagine all the knowledge and experience you have now! Learning one thing isn't just one thing, it's learning about the world, learning how to learn, and about all the things connected to it. Your knowledge is much more general than the words on your resume.
I can't tell you how to fix money, i know that's an extremely difficult problem for a lot of people and I've seen it hurt. But i can say that you must be an incredibly capable and knowledgeable person, who has true potential. The kind of thing that doesn't happen in a job, but in a spark. The kind of spark that you don't even know exists until it does. I hope you're doing okay friend
Thank you for your thoughtful comment
Not sure what to say, I always had family to catch me, intentionally or not, when I came even remotely close to what you are going through. All I can think of is this: nothing is worth sacrificing your life for. That, and most likely you are not alone, even if you din't know it. I am no religious person, so no prayers, but I sincerly hope you get through this!
This is the worst advice but it worked for me: I just stopped caring and let go. I no longer believe that there is any justice in the world, and I accept that I cannot change that so I just look out for myself. It’s a bleak outlook but everything is so much easier now, and I’m still alive.
Just to chime in on the 'alternate explanations', I think it's important for anyone with conspiracy ideas to remember that the case he was being questioned in was not an investigation into Boeings liability as an airplane manufacturer, but rather a civil suit he made against Boeing for defamation of character.
And companys would never bring the full instruments to force on a single person. PIs etc, psycho-terror and so on and so forth..
The Ebay stalking case comes up to mind
Which only came to light because they were shockingly inept about it.
That case absolutely made me wonder about how many big corporations have successfully executed more subtle versions of the tactic.
There is a name for that kind of state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic
Your comment borders on gaslighting.
Barnett was involved in a whistleblower lawsuit against Boeing, alleging serious safety concerns at the North Charleston plant, where he managed quality for the 787 Dreamliner production. He claimed the push for speed compromised safety, with sub-standard parts being used and a significant failure rate in emergency oxygen systems.
Despite raising these issues, he felt his concerns were disregarded, leading to legal action against Boeing, alleging career damage due to his whistleblowing.
The thing about being a very rational person like this, is that you're very easy to manipulate.
? I don't get your remark
I think he's saying that you're too willing to believe the reasonable, plausible explanation that falls out of Occam's Razor, as opposed to accepting whatever embattled fringe theory of the day also fits the available evidence.
Said every conspiracy theorist ever.
I endure the feature creeps of computer languages with their compiler implementations (ISO and gcc extensions are the worse). Sneaky and vicious planned obsolescence scheme on a 5-10 years cycle.
It is very accute too. Just a bunch of scammers with an army of brain washed dudes or worse. We have a name for them: Big Tech.
Everybody has limits.
But in this very case, this is extremely unfortunate timing... or even more fishy than expected. Whatever, something is off in Boeing. Some screws need tightening ...
I was pondering today about how the current economic condition of the populace incentivizes workers (everybody) to ignore moral concerns. If you saw something that really bothered you morally and were to blow the whistle and it hit the news cycle, you would never be able to work in your field again. You would probably get sued (legitimately or not). You could no longer provide for yourself or your family; probably for the rest of your life.
I worked at an immoral company; a small health insurance company that constantly weaseled out of paying claims. They even fired a new worker who had gotten in a car accident just so they wouldn't have to pay for it; the health insurance provided to employees was from the company's product line. They would always say, "we're not denying you care, we just aren't going to pay for it." One time a disgruntled customer or family member showed up with a gun to the office. This was decades ago and I did the only thing I felt I could do. I left when I could and I feel pretty good about it. They were eventually shut down by the state for not paying claims. I would have left earlier but I had rent and bills to pay. That's how modern economic conditions incentivize people to ignore moral concerns.
Long story short, if you feel you are working at a company that forces you to ignore moral concerns and you can't overcome it, work towards getting the fuck out as soon as you can financially.