• CrackBurger [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    6 months ago

    Tinfoil hat

    Boeing is paying this guy to come forward with less damning evidence than the evidence brought forward by the two previous whistleblowers in order to divert attention from their deaths so people forget and keep this guy alive whilst also praising his willingness to come forward.

    • Ideology [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      It’s not even that complicated. Just reward some opinionated doofus with good boy points and you’ll look like you’re doing something. This is to cast doubt in court around the fact that they have a toxic work culture around quality.

      It’s easy enough to return to normal when the doofus has served his purpose. All industrial jobs pull this shit. It’s why they have the “safety team”.

      • This is the simplest explanation. There was bound to be someone who would report something small, no reason to pay someone to do it. The easy-to-solve problems have been solved for years and now you can just advertise that like it’s new

    • DamarcusArt@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      6 months ago

      Whether or not they’re paying the guy to come forward is less relevant than them praising him. They’re very, very loudly going “look! We don’t murder whistleblowers!” with this. They want to focus the discussion on whether or not they actually off whistleblowers instead of whether or not they’re actually fixing their severe lack of safety in their aircraft. It’s distraction either way, regardless of if this guy is paid off.

    • Hello_Kitty_enjoyer [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      basically yea that was my first thought

      also the title implies blame on “safety checks” rather than their iron-bricks-in-the-sky. Basically blaming some inspection service instead of the physical product