https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Boisjoly
> Boisjoly sent a memo describing the problem to his managers, but was apparently ignored.[8] Following several further memos, a task force was convened to investigate the matter, but after a month Boisjoly realized that the task force had no power, no resources, and no management support. In late 1985, Boisjoly advised his managers that if the problem was not fixed, there was a distinct chance that a shuttle mission would end in disaster. No action was taken.
> After President Ronald Reagan ordered a presidential commission to review the disaster, Boisjoly was one of the witnesses called. He gave accounts of how and why he felt the O-rings had failed, and argued that the caucus called by Morton Thiokol managers, which resulted in a recommendation to launch, was an "unethical decision-making forum resulting from intense customer intimidation."
> According to Boisjoly, Thiokol unassigned him from space work, and he was ostracized by his colleagues and managers.
The whole case strikes me as odd. Not only did the higher ups know about the problem, they also left a paper trail about keeping a lid on it and getting rid of the guy. This opens them up to a lot of scenarios, like:
- As demonstrated by this case, the information came out because of the wrongful termination
- If an accident had happened there's a fairly high chance that the investigators would uncover it, either because the engineer in question came forward or because they think they should have known about this, and cracks appear when they start asking questions.
An unspoken rule in a lot of fields is that you make sure that this kind of information never reaches the people that could be held liable for it. The people that are likely to be held responsible at least have to make it appear that they're not trying to suppress information like this. You quickly lose that ability if you actively try to get rid of people that tries to raise an issue. So they surround themselves with middle management that knows to not bring things up to them, without being explicitly told so.
The legislation tends to protect the paper entity 'the corporation' rather than the living breathing human.
It's okay for you to disagree. That's just my belief system.
what a f..d up world we live in
He's no whistleblower with inside information. His engineering role is to design track geometry and nothing to do with stations or passengers so he has no professional authority to speak on the subject beyond that of an ordinary rail passenger.
The problems at Euston are well known and obvious to anyone who uses the station.
In fact, the UK rail safety regulator issued an improvement notice with legal force requiring the operator to take steps to change the situation: https://www.orr.gov.uk/search-news/rail-regulator-requires-c...
Then you should be ashamed to even try to impune his credentials and say he had no "" professional authority"" to comment on the safety issue. What the fuck!
I'm not sure about the UK, but in the USA, most lawyers would take this case speculatively and they would charge 30% of the winnings. It's an amount calibrated to just barely be acceptable but it typically isn't as bad as you suggest.
Over his life, he will almost certainly earn less.
Shouldn't have spoken out. Had he kept quiet, a crush would have happened, a few people would have been pushed off a platform and died under a train, and it would be a "tragedy" - but he'd get to keep his livelihood.