7 ms·
Federal workers should start striking. I gather that in most cases they're explicitly prevented from striking, but I think there's a good chance that it's too u
by mayneack 8y ago
Federal workers should start striking. I gather that in most cases they're explicitly prevented from striking, but I think there's a good chance that it's too unpopular to actually punish them.
Also yesterday some leadership of the flight attendants union called for a general strike until it was over: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/01/could-an-unlikely-aviation-strike-end-the-shutdown.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/01/could-an-unlikely-av...
- justaguyhere 8y agothey're explicitly prevented from striking Wow, is this true? Is this even legal (except maybe police and military)?
- okl 8y agoIt happened in the past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_(1968)#August_1981_strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Contr...
- pc86 8y agoATC is going to be as important economically and for public safety as police and military. You literally cannot fly commercial flights without ATC. They issue the flight plans, provide the routing, provide clearances for every taxi movement on the ground and every landing and takeoff for every commercial flight in the country. So what I mean is that whatever argument is made to make it illegal for police to strike (assuming it is), the same argument applies to ATC.
- knotdvn 8y agoInvest in my startup. UBER for ATC. Algorithms for Routing, Smart Contract, BlockChain, Natural Language... Disruption
- opwieurposiu 8y agoThis is just wrong. Commercial flights fly all the time without ATC. The majority of airports in the USA are uncontrolled. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-towered_airport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-towered_airport
- base698 8y agoAny flight above 17999 ft in class A airspace requires an IFR flight plan. IFR requires controllers for the clearance, release, and approach clearance. Probably what he means.... Most Jets and planes people have experience with would be flying at those altitudes.
- Casseres 8y agoFYI: Civilian flights in Class A airspace (at or above 18,000ft in most places) require an IFR clearance. State flights can fly "due regard" (VFR) in Class A airspace. In Hawaii, there is no Class A airspace, and I once controlled a civilian aircraft flying VFR at FL210 (21,000ft).
- akhilcacharya 8y agoCommercial airliners do not take off in non-towered airports.
- opwieurposiu 8y agoThere are many Commercial flights every day to non-towered airports. In backcounty Alaska this is the norm. Clearly you have a big-city bias in your thinking.
- akhilcacharya 8y agoOK, that's fair. Didn't consider Alaska which is known for these requirements.
- Casseres 8y agoYes they do. I have issued clearances through Flight Service to such aircraft.
- saalweachter 8y agoWhat's legal is what 5 people on the Supreme Court say is legal.
- bdcravens 8y agoUnless it was deemed an emergency, how many months does it take a typical case to make it before the USSC?
- hindsightbias 8y agoAll the years it takes to get through lower courts and appeals. And then probably six months after it is accepted.
- opwieurposiu 8y agoThe usual justification is that Federal workers get more benefits (pensions!!) then other workers and so they give up their right to strike in return.
- tylerl 8y agoSafety-critical services like police, military, and yes, air traffic control, are not allowed to go on strike. Everyone who's working without pay is also not allowed to strike. Everyone else who is not getting paid are not expected to work during the shut down.
- NeedMoreTea 8y agoReagan outlawed ATC strikes, after firing all of them during a dispute early in his presidency. Early 80s.
- Cyph0n 8y agoI highly doubt that any president would ever dare do that again. It took years for the US to recover...
- rootusrootus 8y agoHow many times since early in 2017 have we collectively said something like "I highly doubt that any president would ever dare ..." only to find out that the current occupant of that position has no such qualms?
- Cyph0n 8y agoTouche.
- odonnellryan 8y agoThey can absolutely quit, but not strike. Does not seem constitutional in the US but eh.
- AndyMcConachie 8y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft%E2%80%93Hartley_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft%E2%80%93Hartley_Act The Act allows the President to intervene in any strike that is considered a national security interest. And this has been interpreted in the courts rather broadly.
- benmowa 8y agoI would hope this only applies to the Union's ability to call a strike, not an individuals right to call in sick?
- mcintyre1994 8y agoReagan did famously fire 11,000 striking air traffic controllers - so while you might be right I can understand a lot of hesitation.
- klq 8y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_(1968)#August_1981_strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Contr... That was very cool. I know Reagan presidency is often romanticised, especially by, ugh, libertarians, but he had a pair of balls.
- SolaceQuantum 8y agoGenuine, is it very cool when now there's possibly going to be a generational shortage of ATC people in the near future possibly as a direct result of this?
- klq 8y agoSometimes tough decisions need to be made. Especially those that are to improve things in the long term, even if it hurts in the short term. That's what being a man is, being able to make hard decisions.
- SolaceQuantum 8y agoMy argument is that we are in the long term now. The long term is a generational labor shortage as a result.
- mikeash 8y agoIsn’t this the exact opposite? It helped in the short term but hurts in the long term.
- klq 8y agoNo. In the short term, it hurt a lot because people had to be trained, etc. But in the long term, it sent a message. Maybe some federal employees would be on strike right now if Reagan hadn't done that.
- agensaequivocum 8y agoIt is illegal for them to strike. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/7311 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/7311
- dkdbejwi383 8y agoLand of the free!
- macawfish 8y ago"Freedom ain't free, bro"
- mayneack 8y ago> I gather that in most cases they're explicitly prevented from striking, but I think there's a good chance that it's too unpopular to actually punish them Yeah, I know.
- save_ferris 8y agoIt's explicitly illegal for Federal Workers to strike, per the Taft-Hartley Act. On top of that, there's not much indication that this administration really cares about what's popular. Federal workers haven't gotten a paycheck in over a month, suggesting that they should break the law because of the low likelihood of punishment underestimates the lengths to which this administration will go to punish those who oppose them. Just look at the more than 200 inauguration day protesters who were arrested and charged with felony rioting[0], many of whom are still fighting their cases in court. [0]: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/11/06/inauguration-day-protesters-legal-battle-only-beginning-trials-trump/761380001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/11/06/in...
- mbostleman 8y agoIt may be illegal to strike but it's not illegal to to not work if you're not paid is it?
- bdcravens 8y agoDepends on the job. There are some jobs where refusal to do your job may carry significant legal penalties (imagine if airline traffic controllers walked out with planes in the air)
- mbostleman 8y agoSure. I'm assuming there's some level of resolution that serves as a transaction. Like maybe a day, or a shift. In your example, I'm talking about your worker not walking out on a flight in final approach, but rather notifying the employer after the shift that she will not be showing up for any future shifts until she is paid.
- bdcravens 8y agoI don't know the specific rules regarding calling in sick etc for that industry. I know most companies have policies regarding absences, and once you hit a certain point, you can be terminated with cause. (presumably just refusing to come in would be treated worse than just calling in sick excessively) Not only would that make them ineligible for unemployment, but I assume that would impact someone in that industry pretty negatively. (How many different employers are there for ATCs?)
- mbostleman 8y agoI don't know about striking per se. But I have been somewhat confused about why all these workers are reporting to work when they're not being paid. If it's purely out of good will and dedication for their jobs, I appreciate that, but I wonder if it doesn't just serve to mask the problem. Employment at will means that every day is a new agreement - I work then you pay. If one side of that declines, then so should the other. I'm sure that one thing at play is that those that continue to show up will probably have better rep with managers when this is over. That's unfortunate and, I assume, technically illegal. But it's all the more reason that if the pay stops, so should the work - across the board.
- yardie 8y agoThe government has effectively outlawed it. They could strike but then the strike would be illegal. It's never been tested in court but with the rush of federal appointments (all happening while we've been watching the circus) of conservative judges it doesn't bode well for worker rights.
- mbostleman 8y agoI think you mean the government has outlawed striking. But I'm not sure the government has outlawed the ability of an individual to not work without pay.
- billylindeman 8y agoThis really needs to be tested in court. Isn't the government technically in breach of contract by not paying employees?
- bdcravens 8y agoProbably it's a risk calculation. For some, they may make more than if they took another job, and even if they quit, there's no guarantee they'd find work before the shutdown ends. (Plus add in the typical 2-3 week period before they'd receive their first check at new job) If they refuse to work without explicitly quitting, then they could probably be terminated with cause, which means they'd likely be ineligible for unemployment benefits.
- j4kp07 8y agoDemocrats could start by approving salary payments during the shutdown.
- lolc 8y agoThey could just work-to-rule.