[DLcygnet] "Get 'er Done!"... Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Lateral Puzzles » Solved Lateral Thinking Puzzles » Solved Puzzles - October 2005 » [DLcygnet] "Get 'er Done!" « Previous Next »

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
Archive through September 30, 2005Lisa22 9-30-05  3:56 pm
Archive through October 01, 2005Lisa22 10-01-05  11:33 pm
  ClosedClosed: New threads not accepted on this page        

Author Message
Jennifer (Tigger32382)
Posted on Monday, October 03, 2005 - 9:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

are they leaving faulty parts somewhere they shouldn't?
Lisa (Dlcygnet)
Posted on Monday, October 03, 2005 - 9:52 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

are they leaving faulty parts somewhere they shouldn't? No. These parts are all as they should be. Or at least, as they should be at whichever point in the creation process they were. (It varied from part to part.)
Lisa (Dlcygnet)
Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 10:49 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Recap: A team of people were sharing my work area (same building, nothing more) while the strike was going on. They shipped finished or nearly finished parts out. I and my collegues were not happy with them, from both a personal and a professional standpoint. Their constant yelling "Get 'er Done." is just one of the reasons we don't like them personally (They also hogged all the good parking places, but that's another matter). You're still looking for what it is they are actually doing (what their job is) and why it piss off the average Boeing employee.
Larry Troxler (Quackscience)
Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 2:38 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

So does what they are doing to piss off the average Boeing employess (and also above-average Boeing empolyees like you certainly are) have to do with the Union politics you mentioned? (This may have been covered already, but since you offered a recap...)

Is the pissed-off factor related to the manner in which they are performing their jobs, more than their actual job description/function in itself?

If it were the regular crew, would they have the same job description, but be performing it in a different manner?

Does their "Get 'er Done" exclmations solve the yopish whooping sound they make, so we don't need to investigate that part any farther?


Are you Boeing people pissed off because the manner in which they perform their jobs is not in the best interest of Boeing's business? Or something else?

Can't you just program one of your robots to grab them by the you-know-what?

Is Boeing currently accepting resumes from talented BSEE's with a heavy emphasis in embedded systems software :)?
Larry Troxler (Quackscience)
Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 3:25 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Or, did the job that these temp workers were doing, not exist before the strike?
Lisa (Dlcygnet)
Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 2:33 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

So does what they are doing to piss off the average Boeing employess (and also above-average Boeing empolyees like you certainly are) have to do with the Union politics you mentioned? (This may have been covered already, but since you offered a recap...) Yesish.

Is the pissed-off factor related to the manner in which they are performing their jobs, more than their actual job description/function in itself? No.

If it were the regular crew, would they have the same job description, but be performing it in a different manner? There is no regular crew.

Does their "Get 'er Done" exclmations solve the yopish whooping sound they make, so we don't need to investigate that part any farther?
Yes.

Are you Boeing people pissed off because the manner in which they perform their jobs is not in the best interest of Boeing's business? Yes and No. Depends on what level manager you ask. To us: Yes. Or something else? No.

Can't you just program one of your robots to grab them by the you-know-what? *grins* I could, if they stood in the same place and held still.

Is Boeing currently accepting resumes from talented BSEE's with a heavy emphasis in embedded systems software ? Always. In fact, they're supposedly only allowed to hire contract workers or people fresh out of college (within the last 2 years). See: https://jobs.boeing.com/JobSeeker/JobSearch

Or, did the job that these temp workers were doing, not exist before the strike? Yes.
Larry Troxler (Quackscience)
Posted on Saturday, October 08, 2005 - 4:27 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)


Quote:

Is Boeing currently accepting resumes from talented BSEE's with a heavy emphasis in embedded systems software ? Always. In fact, they're supposedly only allowed to hire contract workers or people fresh out of college (within the last 2 years). See: https://jobs.boeing.com/JobSeeker/JobSearch




Sorry to mislead - not a new graduate, but rather an old timer with many years of job experience.

Anyhow, I'm entirely stumped with this puzzle :(
Larry Troxler (Quackscience)
Posted on Saturday, October 08, 2005 - 4:35 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Aside from the "Get 'er done" exclamations, there is something else that aggravates you about these workers, correct?

And that is what we need to discover?

And this is something that has directly to do with their job description, as temporary as it may be?

And their job would not exist at all if it were not for the union politics?

*I'm at a complete loss here*
Barbara Johannessen Bailey (Rabrab)
Posted on Saturday, October 08, 2005 - 5:19 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

OK, so the temp workers came in during a machinist's strike, right? did the material handlers go out with the machinists? did the shipping department? Or were the temps taking parts to other machinist's shop who weren't supporting the strike??
Lisa (Dlcygnet)
Posted on Saturday, October 08, 2005 - 5:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Aside from the "Get 'er done" exclamations, there is something else that aggravates you about these workers, correct? Yes.

And that is what we need to discover? Yes. What their actual fuction is. What they're helping the company to do.

And this is something that has directly to do with their job description, as temporary as it may be? Yes.

And their job would not exist at all if it were not for the union politics? Not necessarily. It would be a lot harder for them to exist if the machinists hadn't gone on strike.

*I'm at a complete loss here*

OK, so the temp workers came in during a machinist's strike, right? Yes. did the material handlers go out with the machinists? The ones in IAM did. These guys aren't with IAM. did the shipping department? No. Teamsters have their own union. Or were the temps taking parts to other machinist's shop who weren't supporting the strike?? Yes. BUT... watch out for FA.
Barbara Johannessen Bailey (Rabrab)
Posted on Sunday, October 09, 2005 - 12:40 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Well, whether they were technically scabs or not, they were helping management minimize the effect of the machinists's strike. Is that (part of?) what annoyed other workers? Did you think that the machinists had a legitimate grievance? so you didn't like the temps, on principle?
Lisa (Dlcygnet)
Posted on Monday, October 10, 2005 - 2:51 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Well, whether they were technically scabs or not, they were helping management YES. minimize <-Explore the effect of the machinists's strike. Is that (part of?) what annoyed other workers? Yope. Did you think that the machinists had a legitimate grievance? Irrelevant so you didn't like the temps, on principle? No.
Barbara Johannessen Bailey (Rabrab)
Posted on Monday, October 10, 2005 - 4:39 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Explore "minimize"...

Did their actions prolong the strike?
Which made things difficult for the rest of the employees?
Meant that you had to drive through a picket line every day for longer than you otherwise would have?

Was part of what annoyed you that they were helping management?
Lisa (Dlcygnet)
Posted on Monday, October 10, 2005 - 7:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Did their actions prolong the strike? No.
Which made things difficult for the rest of the employees? No.
Meant that you had to drive through a picket line every day for longer than you otherwise would have? No.

Was part of what annoyed you that they were helping management? Yes. Way high up management whose choices are unhealthy for the workers and the country.
Barbara Johannessen Bailey (Rabrab)
Posted on Monday, October 10, 2005 - 7:53 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hum. I'm trying to remember what the thinking pattern was 'way back when I was a Teamster... I was never really involved in the union politics, though.

Does your last comment mean that you and your also-annoyed co-workers think that the company would have been? be? better off if top management hadn't gotten their way?
Barbara Johannessen Bailey (Rabrab)
Posted on Monday, October 10, 2005 - 8:04 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I'm going to recap for my own benefit here, if you don't mind :)

The machinists were out on strike, and so were the Boeing material handlers (who were also IAM) right?

The temps were material handlers who were from a non-union company, and were brought in by top management?

They were taking parts that normally would have gone to the Boeing IAM machinists to other, non-union shops, right?

We need to figure out their actual function: besides physically moving the parts to machine shops to be worked on?

{And what they were helping the company to do:}
The obvious ones: meet contract deadlines? produce airplanes? win additional contracts?

The less obvious one: undercut competitors?
Lisa (Dlcygnet)
Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 2:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hum. I'm trying to remember what the thinking pattern was 'way back when I was a Teamster... I was never really involved in the union politics, though. It has less to do with Union politics and more to do with company politics

Does your last comment mean that you and your also-annoyed co-workers think that the company would have been? be? better off if top management hadn't gotten their way? Yope. We support our union brothers, but what's happening here had little to do with the stuff they were negotiating for.

I'm going to recap for my own benefit here, if you don't mind Go right ahead.

The machinists were out on strike, and so were the Boeing material handlers (who were also IAM) right? No. I think these guys have a seperate Union. Teamsters definately do.

The temps were material handlers who were from a non-union company, and were brought in by top management? No, they're Boeing employees and probably here under middle management control.

They were taking parts that normally would have gone to the Boeing IAM machinists to other, non-union shops, right? Yes. Watch out for an FA here. Boeing has no non-union machinists/shops

We need to figure out their actual function: besides physically moving the parts to machine shops to be worked on? Yes.

{And what they were helping the company to do:}
The obvious ones: meet contract deadlines? Yes. produce airplanes? Always. win additional contracts? Maybe.

The less obvious one: undercut competitors? Always.
Tim A. Dowd (Bodo)
Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 2:37 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Boeing makes a lot of different things besides airplanes, too...and how big is Boeing these days, somewhere between 120,000 and 150,000 employees, I would guess? Corporate-wide, I mean.

Are they (the replacements) from a different company within Boeing? Is it relevant that the catch phrase in the title belongs to comedian Larry the Cable Guy (Daniel Lawrence Whitney)? Were they doing the same kind of work they normally do/are trained for?
Barbara Johannessen Bailey (Rabrab)
Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 5:06 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Ok, so they're taking the parts to non-Boeing machine shops? Outside shops?
Lisa (Dlcygnet)
Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 6:32 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Are they (the replacements) from a different company within Boeing? Irrel. Is it relevant that the catch phrase in the title belongs to comedian Larry the Cable Guy (Daniel Lawrence Whitney)? Only relevant in that this is what they were constantly yelling at each other. It was one of their annoying habits. Were they doing the same kind of work they normally do/are trained for? Not sure. Irrelevant though.

Ok, so they're taking the parts to non-Boeing machine shops? Yes. Outside shops? YES
Barbara Johannessen Bailey (Rabrab)
Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 6:38 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Is what shops they were taking the parts to relevant? or is it enough that they were going outside of Boeing?
Lisa (Dlcygnet)
Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 7:52 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Is what shops they were taking the parts to relevant? I don't think it's possible for me to even find out. So no. or is it enough that they were going outside of Boeing? Yes.
Jennifer (Tigger32382)
Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 9:46 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

So what is left to find out?
Lisa (Dlcygnet)
Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 5:50 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

So what is left to find out?

What was really happening to these parts? Why were they doing this? Why would this annoy hard working Americans? *hint hint cough cough*
Tim A. Dowd (Bodo)
Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 6:07 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Were they being assembled into bigger parts/components? Quality control checked? Painted? Cleaned? Tested? Inventoried? Machined?

They were trying to save money so they could get huge bonuses, big raises and more stock options?

Because outsourcing is scary? And there's always someone willing to do it cheaper?
Haenlomal (Haenlomal)
Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 6:17 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Were they exporting these parts to other countries? Countries that America perhaps doesn't exactly have a "cozy, cozy" relationship with?
Lisa (Dlcygnet)
Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 4:08 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Were they being assembled into bigger parts/components? Quality control checked? Painted? Cleaned? Tested? Inventoried? Machined?
All of these are possible. Eventually. Not by these people

They were trying to save money so they could get huge bonuses, big raises and more stock options? Indirectly.

Because outsourcing is scary? And there's always someone willing to do it cheaper? YES. Keep going with these.

Were they exporting these parts to other countries? Possibly. Countries that America perhaps doesn't exactly have a "cozy, cozy" relationship with? No.
Lisa (Dlcygnet)
Posted on Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 6:39 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Meh. People seem to be stuck. Either that or I'm expecting something too abstract. Shall I spoil and put this puzzle out of its misery? Nobody seems interested... Most of the parts have been figured out, just nobody has put it together.
Barbara Johannessen Bailey (Rabrab)
Posted on Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 7:35 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Well, let's see, we know that they were Boeing employees from a different department, we know that they were shipping parts to outside shops for finishing to bypass a machinist's strike, thereby hitting both the "outsourcing" nerve and the "strike-breaking" nerve, and we know that they were loud and disruptive with their whooping and'get'er dones!"

So we've got the personal reason (the noisyness) and two business-oriented reasons (the outsourcing and the strike-breaking) for other employees to be upset with them.

What else is there to find out?
Lisa (Dlcygnet)
Posted on Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 8:06 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Yeah, that confirms it. A bit too abstract.

*****************SPOILER********************

The day the strike began, my particular warehouse style office/lab area was invaded by some shipping people who'd been operating out of another building on regular work. They said they were only over here temporarily in order to send work out to other shops for completion during the strike. HOWEVER, the fact that they did that from our building rather than their own (where all the managers could see what they're sending out) made us suspicious. We took notes on a couple of the part numbers and after the strike, paid attention as to whether or not those parts were still being made in-house. The answer to most of those parts was no. They lied about what they were doing. They were really outsource folks.


Great job getting this far. I'm going to try something a little less abstract. Either that or I need to figure out where I went wrong in my answering/clues.

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action: