Boeing whistleblower John Barnett alleged in a lawsuit prior to his death in South Carolina that he was "harassed" and "humiliated" for speaking out at work.

cross-posted from: https://kbin.social/m/news/t/910625

Boeing whistleblower John Barnett alleged in a lawsuit prior to his death in South Carolina that he was “harassed” and “humiliated” for speaking out at work.

  • girlfreddy@lemmy.ca
    1311·
    8 months ago

    It stated that Barnett “continually objected to Boeing creating and maintaining a program not approved by the FAA that allowed mechanics to inspect and approve their own work, known as the Multi-function Process Performer.”

    Boeing should be dismantled and everyone involved in the harassment campaign against Barnett should be charged.

    But that’ll never happen 'cause it’s too big to fail.

    • FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world
      12·
      8 months ago

      Them inspecting their own product was a funny punchline for John Oliver, very much not funny in the real world.

      Agreed, Boeing should be dismantled and the people charged.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      10·
      8 months ago

      I don’t understand why “too big to fail” is also “too big to be broken up.” We broke up what was once literally the only company you could use if you wanted to use a telephone and it seems to have worked out.

      • neptune@dmv.socialEnglish
        9·
        8 months ago

        What was once a politically reasonable and feasible course of action is now communism. Fox News now thinks for 30% of the country.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          6·
          8 months ago

          And you know the craziest part? The plan to break up the Bell monopoly was created under Ford’s DOJ and implemented under Reagan.

          So even they were in favor of breaking up “too big to fail” companies.

  • Gork@lemm.ee
    1165·
    8 months ago

    Boeing’s hit job must have been well planned.

    The killer would have had to kill him in his car, wrap his hands around the gun to establish fingerprint marks. A company like Boeing that’s part of the Military-Industrial Complex wouldn’t have an issue finding a highly trained contract killer.

    Bribes at the local authority level (maybe higher too) to have them rule it a suicide with no further investigation needed. No need for further pesky questions.

    Now all I’m waiting on is for the judge to toss out his incomplete testimony since it isn’t complete.

    Then just wait a few weeks until the media focuses on other things.

    Then the execs can have martinis while stock number go up.

    • Ultraviolet@lemmy.worldEnglish
      592·
      8 months ago

      They don’t need to do that, they could have just called him on a burner phone and threatened to kill his family if he didn’t kill himself. Forensically indistinguishable from suicide, but absolutely murder by coercion.

      • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
        19·
        8 months ago

        Didn’t have to have been Boeing. Must be plenty of investors.

        Fucking disgusting we’ll never know*, RIP heroic whistleblower who lost everything.

        (*I acknowledge there’s a non-zero chance it was suicide)

      • olicvb@lemmy.caEnglish
        10·
        8 months ago

        Has it ever happened to check the previous call logs of a suicide victim? Of course Boeing can bribe the telcom to keep shut / delete the info. But i’m curious wether it’s ever been done.

    • ysjet@lemmy.worldEnglish
      541·
      8 months ago

      Regardless of if they actually hired a hitman, it’s very clear that Boeing harassed and psychologically attacked this man to the point of him ending up dead.

      Whether they actually hired a man to pull that trigger or convinced him to pull it himself, legally his murder would be on their hands and they damn well need charged for it.

    • Nom Nom@lemm.eeEnglish
      9·
      8 months ago

      As it happened with Khashoggi and the same with Daphne and the list will always keep going on & on while we imagine hearing the clink of more glasses after.

        • Nom Nom@lemm.eeEnglish
          6·
          8 months ago

          I didn’t want to mention him as he wasn’t a heroic whistle blower but a criminal with a testimonial, but yes I agree even he wasn’t spared by his fellow posh.

      • tryptaminev 🇵🇸 🇺🇦 🇪🇺@feddit.de
        12·
        8 months ago

        Being willing to kill someone as a “last option” and wanting to kill everyone who poses the slightest threat are not the same motivations.

        Also thinking about it, how many people at a company the size of Boeing become a threat by being bothered with criminal practices violating safety and other law and ethic standards? How many do we not hear about because the “normal” coercion tactics work?

        Having half your engineering department wind up dead because they raised concerns about issues with the production could backfire much more to begin with, but also it would make every engineer look for a different employer quickly. So trying to destroy someones reputation first, ousting him, creating a “him vs. us” mentality is preferential. It also makes it easier for the company to move on after killing him, if the need arises.

        So both from a emotionally crippled, but not fully devoid point of view and from an completely psychopathic cold blooded strategy point of view it makes sense to not pull the trigger on everyone right away.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          3·
          8 months ago

          I can’t think of a bigger chilling effect on employees than making it clear to them that if you speak out, you’ll be dead.

  • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
    232·
    8 months ago

    Why put a hit on a guy when you can just harass him until he kills himself?

    Than again neither scenario reflects super well on Beoing. It’s like it’s run by Mr. Burns…