A former Boeing employee, who was found dead in March, accused the company of “countless” violations of US law in testimony given just before his death.

John Barnett claimed the firm tried to “eliminate” quality inspections at a plant that makes 787 planes.

The former quality control manager had been giving a formal legal deposition against the plane manufacturer.

The transcript of Mr Barnett’s deposition has now been released by his lawyers. The lengthy document runs to more than 140 pages.

The bulk of Mr Barnett’s deposition focuses on the period from 2010 onwards, after he had moved from Boeing’s facility in Everett, Washington to what was then a brand-new factory in North Charleston.

  • CMLVI@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    There are $105.6 billion in reasons. Public knowledge of safety measures and quality control directly effects stock price. That’s billions of dollars tied up in knowledge not becoming public. Who benefits? Shareholders. Not knowing who did it doesn’t mean it wasn’t murder. Plenty of murders happen without knowing the culprit or even specific motive. The guy outright said “if I die, I was killed”. And then he kills himself for the memes? What’s his motive for suicide, especially given his quotes regarding it?

    • arglebargle@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      8 months ago

      So now it might be a shareholder? I am beginning to think it is just as likely that the Union did it, as opposed to the CEO or Board. Maintain power, keep benefits for the employees, keep the eyes off of just how bad the drug problems had been on the lines.

      Think about it, Barnetts death doesnt even benefit Boeing. It only causes more controversy, and everything he was going to testify about gets even more scrutiny. Public opinion is even worse. Boeing is going to be found negligent, they are going to pay fines, and those things really will have no major effect on the company or the people with money.

      • CMLVI@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        It’s the exact same argument for the company. Protect the money. Benefits for the Union? It’s money via benefits. If stock price isn’t motivation for the company, it isn’t motivation for the Union. If keeping the negatove publicity of a drug problem on the lines a secret is motivation for the Union, keeping the negative publicity of a corner cutting secret is motivation for the company (ESPECIALLY amid previous negative publicity with the 737 Max fiasco). If maintaining power is motivation for the Union, keeping power via Boeings 42% market share is motivation for the company. Unless Boeing is not motivated by money, or it’s not motivated to keep a positive public appearance, or it’s not motivated by keeping power, which I’d argue are ALL motivations of a publicly international corporation worth hundreds of billions of dollars, then I fail to see why these are motivations that preclude Boeing Co.