> where such fatally negligent parasitic workers can be easily shit canned
How charitable of a read does one need to give a comment that uses pejorative and hyperbolic language without providing any substantive refutation?
It takes self control, but walking past the problem is sometimes the more effective solution.
"Man, that asshole on the Internet disagreed with me. I'm going to write a detailed rebuttal of why they're the asshole."
vs.
"Hunh, I wonder why I occasionally get down voted and no one ever responds to me? And also, the responses I do get are a lot nicer in tone than mine..."
That being said, "operator error" as a reason for a problem is heavily discouraged (at least in official reports). Rather, it's typical to blame a human factors issue, commonly one of the "dirty dozen" [0]. I couldn't say exactly which ones are present at Boeing but frankly, from the public reports almost all of them sound applicable. With this in mind, process change is the only appropriate remedy, regardless of what the union thinks. I've never heard any union people get mad at something that improves their job though.
[0] https://skybrary.aero/articles/human-factors-dirty-dozen
I don't think you're charitably reading parent.
Sometimes, the employee is the problem. And sometimes, union contracts preclude changing processes (or make change unnecessarily burdensome) to improve outcomes.
Introducing another party into agreements doesn't come free.
I'm as pro-union as anyone around here... but it is another level of bureaucracy. And sometimes, protecting "our people" can include not letting go people who should be let go (e.g. decreasing headcount in assembly to hire more professional QA people).
That said, solutions do need to come from all levels, and I think unions do provide a necessary counter-pressure to management deciding only employees need to bear the brunt of change.