• Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    19 hours ago

    no, they didn’t fucking hire some guy to go kill John Barnett, that would be fucking stupid.

    The possibity will certainly frighten future whistle-blowers.

    • chaogomu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      18 hours ago

      No.

      What disincentivizes future whistleblowing is the prospect of never being able to work in your field ever again, because your boss, or rather his boss, talked to his counterpart at the other aerospace companies, so now no one will hire you.

      You then drown in debt, and die penniless on the street, years or decades later. Depending on your luck.

      Simply killing someone is messy. You might get caught. Ruining a man’s life to the point where he kills himself? That’s disturbingly easy.

      Again, the lawsuit was not over John Barnett’s whistleblowing. That case had concluded a few years earlier, with Boeing being found in violation of some safety standards. They got a fine and John Barnett got fired. Except Boeing didn’t “Fire” him, they forced him to retire.

      So John Barnett sues Boeing for wrongful termination, and loses. Boeing has some very expensive lawyers.

      John appeals the loss, and that’s what this court case was about. He was giving testimony about how Boeing retaliated against him. And he obviously thought that he was going to lose again.

      • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 hours ago

        What disincentivizes future whistleblowing is the prospect of never being able to work in your field ever again

        That’s is a standard disincentive across US industry.

        Knowing that a company hounded their previous whistle-blowers to death (no matter the method) is and additional disincentive specific to Boeing.