Posts
First noticed the post on LinkedIn
https://www.linkedin.com/news/story/boeing-fires-65-for-hateful-conduct-5052812/
According to the reports, following the George Floyd protests, Boeing exposed it's numbers around it's employee profiles by race and gender, and promised to increase it's black hires.
Searching to find what specific racist conduct was cited as justifiable for firing, I only found this article on Fox, stating that black employees were assigned to unsanitary areas compared to whites.
More about hiring demographics:
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/boeing-terminates-65-employees-for-racist-hateful-conduct-2021-05-01
The action is coming from CEO Dave Calhoun, who, according to the wiki:
'was appointed in January of 2020 after the then CEO, Dennis Muilenburg, was fired amidst safety issues regarding the 737 MAX after two fatal crashes that claimed the lives of 346 passengers and crew on board.'
Maybe Boeing needed some social kudos to compensate and redirect public attention. In some circles this tactic might be considered a form of 'subrogation'.
So, did Boeing decide it was legally vulnerable because of having a higher number of whites, and wanted to find a reason to make room for more blacks by cutting non-black employees under false pretense of racist conduct? Seems like job assignment and hiring numbers are up to HR, and that would answer up to Boeing higher ups. Which 65 people were fired, and what were their jobs? What department, and what exactly did they do that was hateful and racist?
And while Boeing is at it, they're also exposing their hiring stats, including gender. Are they going to start leveling those numbers as well, and make room by cutting men based on sexual harassment charges?
Human resources at any large company will typically deal with hostile incidents directly and swiftly, so were these 65 people such known entities creating ongoing problems who were suddenly let go as if the behavior were previously tolerated as though there were no basic code of conduct? Seems awfully unlikely. It's hard to imagine that employees were exhibiting such blatantly 'racist' conduct at work that they were able to identify and cut 65 people.
The only incident mentioned suggests that their hiring and placement was 'systemically racist', so are we to assume that there was a ring of 65 people coordinating biased hiring and treatment of black employees? Or were there racists who self organized and began singing the N word in barbershop quartet competitions? I'd love to know what really happened. I'd like to hear from the accused.
What specific reason were these employees given for being fired, or was it kept vague and implicit under the umbrella of 'racist' and 'hateful' conduct? Imagine losing a job as a result of being cited for racist behavior by a big corporation like Boeing. What would that do to someone's career and personal life?
If Boeing is using the George Floyd incident to justify cleaning house and adjusting their numbers, 65 people is enough to file a class action lawsuit against Boeing. It's one thing to hire based on quotas, it's another thing to fire based on quotas, and yet quite another thing to ruin someone under false pretenses to satisfy quotas. Unless the employees were roaming the hallways of Boeing chanting the N word, it sounds like Boeing sacrificed some employees to placate the BLM gods.
And of course, there are plenty on LinkedIn who are quick to say a blessing for everyone to see.
I remember being sent to the principle in 6th grade because I was accused of participating in a food fight and protested when I was assigned a punishment along with the kids who actually threw food. I was embarrassed and insulted when the teacher named me in the list of food fighters in front of the class, and I spoke out. The teacher angrily retorted that she saw me laughing. Yes, I laughed but I never threw food, I replied. That was enough to get a warning that she would send me to the principle, so I took it on the chin, and challenged her in front of the class. Not only did I end up having to write several hundred sentences saying 'I will not throw food' or whatever it was, but the principle assigned another several hundred more sentences and gave my a paddling. I guess the moral of the story is don't question the teacher's authority in front of the class. In today's context, the moral of the story is don't question the woke narrative, just comply. I think these employees are going to need a lawyer.
All of this corporate 'wokeness' is driven by liability under the pretense of morale imperative. These companies need to understand that liability can go both ways.
