Preposterous, right? Of course, it was due to the IAM's hard work on behalf of their union members and because of Washington State Governor Gary Locke's and the Washington Legislature's tax breaks and their (and Washington State's Senators and Representatives in Congress) lobbying of Boeing that secured that Everett won Boeing's '"site selection" decision, right?

Wrong. At least wrong per Boeing's thinking.

While, due to possible pending prosecution of me at Boeing's direction for this "crime," I cannot personally confirm I took the actions Boeing accused me of--actions that they told me had led them to make "the wrong decision" (per Boeing's belief) in the 787 site selection process, placing 787 final production in Everett instead of Charleston.

During my candid interview with Boeing's Corporate Investigations Manager on May 19th, 2006 (the day after I was released from jail after being arrested at Boeing's request) that is partly documented elsewhere on this site, the Corporate Investigator told me that Boeing knew it was me that had leaked Boeing's decision to pitch to Boeing's Board of Directors (BOD) that Everett was BCA's preferred choice for the "winner" of the Site Selection process.   

The Corporate Investigations Manager told me and my Union Rep at the meeting how he was amazed the reporter who broke the story wrote six articles out of that site selection information he accused me of leaking to the press.

He also stated that Boeing had originally thought the leak was from a Boeing Executive trying to pressure the Board into going with BCA's recommendation of selection of Everett as the "winner" of the 787 "site selection" process.

The Corporate Investigations Manager then told me that the Boeing Board of Directors had been very reluctant to even consider Everett for final assembly and delivery of the 787 because (in his words), "the Board did not want union problems" that selection of Everett would have meant, from the Board's perspective.

I was quite amazed at his candor and description of the decisionmaking of Boeing's Board of Directors "behind the scenes" of the 787 Site Selection process. 

What was curious to me was the fact that the Corporate Investigations Manager did not describe at all any other reasons the Boeing Board of Director's selected Everett for the 787, such as the noted tax breaks or union and politician lobbying.

That meant to me that the decision to site the 787 in Everett was indeed made only because of this leak to the press--a leak Boeing was sure I had been behind. 

The Board apparently had to go with Everett after the leak, because to do otherwise (as the Board wanted to do) would have been almost impossible for them because publicly going against the leaked recommendation of Everett by BCA's CEO would have been much more difficult for the company to attempt to justify to its own employees and Washington State's Congressional representatives than if the leak had not occured.

So, apparently, it was not only my whistleblowing of Boeing's internal corruption and illegal actions detailed elsewhere on this site that got Boeing's ire up against me--it was also my role (per Boeing's belief) in being instrumental in getting the 787 final assembly line placed in Everett instead of the Boeing Board's preferred choice of a non-union South Carolina site that  I was terminated for. Of course, Boeing was not about to admit (even in that closed door meeting) the overriding role retaliation for my "letting the skeletons out of their closet" played in my termination.

What is curious is the fact that supposedly no employee of my lowly stature (a production line inspector, probably the least important worker at Boeing as I've only too well witnessed) could even gain access to the site selection information Boeing accused me of leaking. All of the information I collected as noted on this site was information any Boeing employee could access--I've never "hacked" into Boeing's network for any such information, nor would I know how to do so (I wish I knew more about computers than my very limited (from my viewpoint) knowledge--at least enough to be able to get an entry level job in the industry).

But, per Boeing, it was me that leaked that information to the press that led them to make a decision on 787 site selection that they otherwise would not have made--the placing of 787 final assembly in Everett.  

Personally, I don't see the siting of 787 final assembly in Everett as a bad thing. Quite the opposite. And that decision was quite the opposite of almost every 787 sourcing decision made before it by Boeing. I guess someone could be fired and jailed for much worse things. Hell, if I could have made such a difference in Boeing's seeming endless war against the interests of their own employees' futures by making Boeing thusly choose Everett over Charleston for final assembly of the 787 against their union phobias, I likely would have done it. I even probably would have volunteered to "do time" for such a "crime" (to Boeing) if I could have changed so many of my fellow Boeing employees' lives (and the lives of future generations of Boeing workers in Washington) for the better and given them a little hope by doing so.   

But, if I am guilty of getting the 787 sited in Everett as Boeing thinks I am by my purported leaking of the BCA CEO's 787 site selection recommendation to the Boeing Board of Directors to the press, it wouldn't be solely or even mainly because of my concern for my fellow worker's futures at Boeing--I would consider doing so mainly so any reporter I leaked such relatively minor information to would perhaps more prominently and more voluminously cover the story I and the public most urgently need covered by the press--the ongoing crime, corruption, and fraud at Boeing and the FAA as noted elsewhere on this site that places so many lives at much extra risk than would otherwise be the case without that fraud.  

So, was it my sole "fault" that Everett "won" 787 final assembly and delivery? Yes, per Boeing's belief.

So, per Boeing, I am the one you should thank if you are one of the few workers that work in Everett on 787 production. Of course, if you are so inclined (or take Boeing's position and want to accuse me of a crime for getting the 787 sited in Everett), you can always contact me at my email address by clicking the menu button to the upper left.  

Some more information that does support the Boeing Corporate Investigations Manager's statement that the Boeing Board did not want to select Everett so they could avoid having union workers I read in an article some years back. The gist of the article was that it was Boeing's internal goal to reduce the number of union workers at the company. I'm not exactly sure if such a strategy is legal from an NLRB standpoint, but, as you will see elsewhere on this site, legalities are not always a concern for Boeing, especially when the schedule or bottom line is perceived to be in jeopardy.

I guess if Boeing gets its way and persecutes me for (I mean, succeeds in having me prosecuted for) having the 787 sited in Everett instead of Charleston and for my collection of data for my whistleblowing activities attempting to end endemic Boeing and FAA fraud, and succeeds in having me do time for such, I could do such time thinking what that guy at the end of the book "Tale of Two Cities" thinks while in jail, if it comes to mind.

But, even though my actions purportedly (per Boeing) were the main reason that 787 final assembly and delivery was sited in Everett instead of the preferred site of Charleston, I would caution against anyone thinking such a decision by Boeing is permanent. Did anyone see that "virtual rollout" in Everett of the 787 by Boeing recently? Boeing is still union phobic in my (above thusly informed) opinion, and all of those little tools--and 787 final assembly and delivery itself--may in the end ultimately end up where Boeing wanted it in the first place--anywhere but in a state with a union workforce. If the unions get "uppity" and insist on decent pay and benefits, Boeing may well "pack up its toys" (787 final assembly tools) in its LCFs and "go (to a nonunion) home" leaving the state. Such an end for 787 production in Washington would not only be tragic for workers here on the 787 that would be displaced and their follow on generations. It would also make one of the acts Boeing "sacrificed" (terminated) me for ultimately in vain.