16 ms·

Ronald Reagan fires 11,359 air-traffic controllers (1981)

200 points by a_imho 6y ago

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
magwa101 6y ago
Note he fires them while supporting the union movement Solidarity in Poland. Totally sick. The beginning of the capitalist destruction of democracy.
- nerdponx 6y ago
  More like its revival as an "open" movement, which had been operating somewhat quietly behind the scenes since the early 20th century.
- e2021 6y ago
  Don't think this is true. From wikipedia it seems like this was a pretty straightforward dispute over pay and conditions.
  - wyldfire 6y ago
    I misread the GP comment that way too. IIUC, GP says that Reagan is inconsistent: firing US air-traffic controllers on strike, but supporting foreign workers on strike.
- imglorp 6y ago
  Poland was yet another proxy activity pushing back the Soviets and communism. As Regan showed, it's never about the workers.
- visiblink 6y ago
  The destruction of an entire union by a former union president (Screen Actors Guild). That's some irony for you.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- tim333 6y ago
  It's odd to equate supporting Solidarity in Poland with the destruction of democracy. I seem to recall the effect was in the other direction.
mavhc 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_(1968) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Contr...
- MrBuddyCasino 6y ago
  Worth reading. Apparently Reagan was right: "In striking, the union violated 5 U.S.C. (Supp. III 1956) 118p (now 5 U.S.C. § 7311), which prohibits strikes by federal government employees[...]"
  - Pfhreak 6y ago
    "Right" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. Reagan was correct that the strikes may have been illegal, but I wouldn't say that Reagan was "right" to fire all the workers.
    - bgentry 6y ago
      It's not "doing a lot of heavy lifting" to use the word unambiguously in one of its many defined meanings. Clearly the parent was referring to Reagan being correct about the illegality of the strike (given that they cited the specific statute), not speaking about any moralistic righteousness. >Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. From https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - jgwil2 6y ago
        It's not clear that this was the only sense in which the word "right" was being used. Language is sometimes ambiguous like that, regardless of the intentions of the author.
      - tstrimple 6y ago
        A slave owner disciplining his slave used to be legal. It was never right.
Damogran6 6y ago
How did they handle the next day? I was young, but don't recall a paralyzing of the industry...
- visiblink 6y ago
  As I recall, in addition to administrators, they made use of the military.
  - skohan 6y ago
    It seems amazing to me that you could replace all the air traffic controllers in one day with no impact on service. I mean even if military ATCs are available and qualified, it seems like you wouldn't have the numbers, and it seems like the kind of job where you would need a significant onboarding to learn the specifics of the airport where you're working
    - visiblink 6y ago
      There was an impact on service. I can't remember the levels (I was 10), but I'm sure someone must have studied it somewhere. It would be a really interesting piece of history to dig into and dissect.
      - justin66 6y ago
        There was an impact at the time, and there was a somewhat lesser, but still quite serious, impact a few decades later, as all the new hires reached mandatory retirement age in the same narrow window of time. There's still something of a cycle there which will be recurring.
    - rantwasp 6y ago
      i’m guessing one or more of the following happened 1) the traffic was not back to 100% instantly and they ramped it up over a longer period of time 2) they offered the people that were fired the option of temporarily keeping their job while they figured out their “new careers” 3) they started training asap and they also relaxed some of their standards/requirements when it came to hiring. It probably was not as swift and badass as it’s portrayed now.
andrewzah 6y ago
It's almost as if electing actors/celebrities to potus isn't a great idea. > The FAA had initially claimed that staffing levels would be restored within two years; however, it took closer to ten years before the overall staffing levels returned to normal.[1] > Reagan's firing of the government employees encouraged large private employers, like Phelps Dodge (1983), Hormel (1985–86), and International Paper (1987), to hire striker replacements instead of negotiating in labor conflicts.[17] Comparatively, in 1970 there were over 380 major strikes or lockouts in the U.S., by 1980 the number had dropped to under 200, in 1999 it fell to 17, and in 2010 there were only 11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_(1968) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Contr...
- greenwich26 6y ago
  I think it's good someone stood up to them. I'm French, we have endemic transportation strikes here, and it will turn your nice city/country into a shithole. The government should do what it takes to maintain infrastructure, transportation, and public services. That is, in fact, the main purpose of the government IMO.
  - croes 6y ago
    Doesn't really work out in Britain and the US who pretty much demolished the unions, it's actually worse.
    - bluGill 6y ago
      The unions are not the cause of it being worse. You can even make the argument that they are one of the causes of things being worse. There is no reason to pay $200/hr to dig tunnels, but New York does. There is no reason to have 3 union employees on a train, automation can do most of their jobs better. These are two that I see transit advocates bring up in the US as to why our transit is so bad. (They are not the only reason, nor even the biggest, but they are factors hurting our transit)
      - 6y ago
fnord77 6y ago
> Richard Sharpe: "The strikers were often working-class men and women who had achieved suburban middle class lives as air traffic controllers without having gone to college. Many were veterans of the US armed forces where they had learned their skills; their union had backed Reagan in his election campaign. Nevertheless, Reagan refused to back down. Several strikers were jailed; the union was fined and eventually made bankrupt. Only about 800 got their jobs back when Clinton lifted the ban on rehiring those who went on strike. Many of the strikers were forced into poverty as a result of being blacklisted for [U.S. government] employment."
- bradleyjg 6y ago
  Class in American discourse is a weird thing. If they had achieved suburban middle class lives, what made them working class? In England, you might say well if your dad was working class then you are working class for your whole life regardless of anything else. But the American notion of class isn’t generally thought of that way.
  - Pfhreak 6y ago
    > If they had achieved suburban middle class lives, what made them working class Did they earn their living by working? Then they are working class. If you make a salary or a wage, if you have a boss, you are working class. Did they make their living by owning stuff (e.g. landlords, investors, etc.)? Then they aren't working class. Edit: Surprised to see downvotes, Wikipedia defines it thus: > "The working class (or labouring class) comprises those engaged in waged or salaried labour, especially in manual-labour occupations and industrial work." White collar jobs are definitely working class folks.
    - bradleyjg 6y ago
      This is a definition intended to push people towards your preferred ideology rather than a neutral description of how the phrase is used out in the wild.
      - 6y ago
_wldu 6y ago
I worked with a man who was fired due to this. He told me that he did not think Reagan would do it (nor did his co-workers). He said that many of his colleagues had to switch careers.
- hindsightbias 6y ago
  And he probably voted for Reagan. It was curious then how such rational workers did not understand Reagan’s ideological bent. It’s not like he hid it.
lolinder 6y ago
Note that, regardless of the ethics of firing them en masse, the strike they were engaged in was, in fact, illegal. It's still in violation of the US Code for government employees to strike or even to claim the right to strike [0]. [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/7311 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/7311
- jandrese 6y ago
  In some ways it is strange they had a Union at all if the Union was toothless. It was a pleasant fiction that was utterly crushed the instant it tried to fight for its members.
- freeflight 6y ago
  This feels very counter-productive. Sure, an argument could be made that certain services are essential to keep running for the public good. But the people working in these kinds of sectors are usually very aware about that fact and will compensate for it by keeping a minimum level of service running even during a strike. While denying them their right to strike, in these essential sectors, is a recipe for steadily underfunding them without even having the "coal canary" of strikes happening to warn of it being underfunded and thus endangering the proper function of these essential sectors.
- socialdemocrat 6y ago
  Just like breaking segregation rules in the South was Illegal or for blacks and whites to marry during segregation in South Africa. I agree that laws matter, but I think people get too hung up on laws at times and don't take into account the profound importance of civil disobedience to advance society forward and get rid of immoral and unethical laws.
  - iandanforth 6y ago
    A thousand times this.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
robtherobber 6y ago
If you don't mind the ideological aspect, this article from 2006 is rather relevant to this historic event: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2006/08/patc-a03.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2006/08/patc-a03.html "The smashing of PATCO marked a turning point in class relations both in the US and internationally. It signaled the definitive end of the policies of liberal reformism and relative class compromise that had predominated in the post-World War II period and the onset of a ruthless capitalist offensive against the working class that continues to this day. It also foreshadowed the collapse of the American trade unions and all of the old, bureaucratized labor organizations and parties internationally, which were based on nationalism and class compromise. Reagan’s assault on the PATCO strikers—an attack without precedent in modern US history—provoked massive opposition among working people both in the US and around the world. One month after Reagan fired the PATCO strikers, more than 500,000 workers converged on Washington, DC, in a “Solidarity Day” demonstration—the largest protest ever in the US—to express their outrage and opposition to the Reagan administration."
- jmclnx 6y ago
  But as I already noted, Reagan was re-elected in 1984 and a lot if his supporters were union members. IIRC, the leadership did endorse the Dem. candidate, who I do not even remember who he was.
  - DFHippie 6y ago
    Mondale.
  - robtherobber 6y ago
    I don't disagree with this, just like I don't disagree with the fact that many people who stood to lose from Brexit voted for Brexit. I think the conclusion here could be that these are both true at the same time: Reagan's actions did had a largely negative effect on workers' rights and that many people who were to be affected (or were already affected) by his actions voted for him.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
mkovach 6y ago
I ended up working a few ex-controllers in my IT career. They has some interesting stories to tell.
pydry 6y ago
Arguably calling in the military to break the strike is what drove the steady climb of income inequality up to today's levels as the private sector followed suit: "Reagan's firing of the government employees encouraged large private employers, like Phelps Dodge (1983), Hormel (1985–86), and International Paper (1987), to hire striker replacements instead of negotiating in labor conflicts.[17] Comparatively, in 1970 there were over 380 major strikes or lockouts in the U.S., by 1980 the number had dropped to under 200, in 1999 it fell to 17, and in 2010 there were only 11.[18] " http://www.the-crises.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/gini-index-usa.jpg http://www.the-crises.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/gini-in...
- Pfhreak 6y ago
  The military and police have a long history of being deployed against workers in the US. In at least one case firing upon striking coal workers. Companies like the Pinkertons have been using violence against striking workers for a long time, (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_strike ) and are still in operation and used to quell labor organizing today. Amazon hired the Pinkertons, for instance, to spy on their workers.
  - psychometry 6y ago
    Why police unions are not part of the American labor movement https://theconversation.com/why-police-unions-are-not-part-of-the-american-labor-movement-142538 https://theconversation.com/why-police-unions-are-not-part-o...
  - xxpor 6y ago
    The modern concept of police essentially started from the strike breakers in the late 1800s
    - UncleSlacky 6y ago
      And slave patrols (in the South, at least).
    - 6y ago
jmclnx 6y ago
Yes, I remember this, I was quite yong then. The USPS was on the verge of striking (my parents and many relatives worked there) and there were deeply worried (terrified) about this. The firing stopped that strike from happening. But yet again these union members voted for Reagan in 1984. I believe this was the start of union busting trend.
- nameless912 6y ago
  > I believe this was the start of union busting trend. Union busting is at least as old an American pastime as baseball.
- hindsightbias 6y ago
  There is a term - Reagan Democrats. Many of whom were/are union workers. And a lot of these people still bleat that the party left them behind in the 90s. I wonder why.
tengbretson 6y ago
It's unfortunate in situations like this, but strikers have to take on some degree of risk when they strike for any of this to work.
cwhiz 6y ago
Illegal strike was illegal. Government employees are not allowed to go on strike. Can you imagine if police or military were allowed to go on strike? The potential mayhem has no upper bound.
- Tarq0n 6y ago
  That's a very harmful assertion to make without supporting evidence. Police go on strike in other developed nations occasionally without major issues. In countries with healthy labor relations the union and employer sometimes negotiate about maintaining critical operations during a strike as well. Military strikes don't necessarily seems that harmful either considering the majority of military personnel is not on active deployment at any given time.
  - cwhiz 6y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray-Hill_riot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray-Hill_riot There are numerous examples of mayhem when police go on strike. In most cases, the military, guard, or militia are brought in to maintain some semblance of order. There is a reason police strikes are illegal.
    - trasz 6y ago
      They are illegal in US, differently from many of the civilised countries.
      - cwhiz 6y ago
        Most countries in the world have restrictions on striking. Including Canada, Mexico, UK, France, Spain, Germany, South Korea, Japan, and others. Most of our allies. I guess none of these countries are civilized.
- krageon 6y ago
  > Can you imagine if police or military were allowed to go on strike Both parties are heavily invested in beating and harassing strikers, so you would have to assume their internal culture doesn't have a whole lot of space for the concept of going on strike.
cs702 6y ago
Reagan was a master of politics. Here's the warm, friendly letter he sent, before getting elected, to the union union of Professional Air Traffic Controllers (PATCO), promising to improve their working conditions if elected President of the US: https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8422/7536594466_92b4d4e020_z.jpg https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8422/7536594466_92b4d4e020_z.... The letter ends with Reagan making a promise to work together in harmony: "I pledge to you that my administration will work very closely with you to bring about a spirit of cooperation between the president and the air traffic controllers. Such harmony can and must exist of we are to restore the people's confidence in their government." Instead, once Reagan assumed power, he became a ruthless adversary of the union. -- Sources: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2012/7/9/1107835/-Remembering-Reagan-s-Sweet-Little-Lie-to-the-Air-Traffic-Controllers https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2012/7/9/1107835/-Rememberi... / https://www.npr.org/2006/08/03/5604656/1981-strike-leaves-legacy-for-american-workers https://www.npr.org/2006/08/03/5604656/1981-strike-leaves-le...
- InTheArena 6y ago
  Do you really think that linking to dailykos, which considers Reagan only slightly worse then Bin Ladin is really a good link? You can argue what Reagan wanted, but there is also no doubt that the union dramatically overplayed it's hands. This was not unusual in the aviation business at the time. There was a major carrier that went to the union and claimed they needed concessions to reform their business to deal with deregulation. The union said, sure, we will do it if you open all your books to us and prove it. The company did, then asked for ratification of the pre- negotiated contract. The union looked at the books, decided that the companies was in fact doomed without them. However, the union represented not just workers at that carrier, but other carrriers as well, and since the union was also present in other carrier theydemanded a top of the market contract to bleed the company dry (and force other carriers to match the contract) figuring that if the company was on it's way it, it should take as much as possible as it could before they went down. (The union/corporate battles at this time are insane. Both the union leaders and the executives were forbidden from exercising leadership ever again - see Frank Lorenzo, Jack Bavis, Charlie Bryan).
  - 6y ago
RHSeeger 6y ago
I find the whole situation really interesting for so many reasons. The fact that the strike was against the law is one of them. However, the most interesting part to me is that it highlights the core dynamics involved in a union. Specifically, the idea behind a union is that it changes the power dynamic; by organizing and working together, the employees try to level the power imbalance between employer and employees. A strike is a particularly clear manifestation of that idea; the employees are saying "give us this, because if you don't we won't work... and you can't just fire us all as it will be catastrophic for you". And it is a powerful manifestation of that, and has a history of working well for the employees. However, in this case, the "employer" has nearly unlimited resources. And the answer to the statement of "you can't just fire us all" was.. "You are incorrect. You did not put enough thought into your position in all this. You are fired... and blacklisted". Regardless of the side you fall on as to whether the reaction was appropriate or not, it did shine a spotlight on the fact that every union is in a different position, and all factors must be considered before resorting to a "might makes right" action (which is what a strike is, even if it was right before might is taken into consideration).
- petermcneeley 6y ago
  Im not a lawyer but I dont think unions work as you describe. Specifically " and you can't just fire us all as it will be catastrophic for you". In terms of game theory the only way a union can really work is if it is illegal to fire a union employee for simply being part of the union (or being on strike). In the cases where the law does not provide such protections union will take physical action against the employer.
  - safog 6y ago
    Can you explain more? I thought employers always had the right to terminate employees, union or not.
    - RHSeeger 6y ago
      After Peter's reply, I looked into it a bit. This page has some useful information on it https://employment.findlaw.com/wages-and-benefits/labor-strike-faqs.html https://employment.findlaw.com/wages-and-benefits/labor-stri...
AcerbicZero 6y ago
I was entirely unfamiliar with this event, and I haven't done enough reading to understand the nuance yet - from pure emotion I can say, as a private pilot, whatever we pay our ATC's isn't enough. Illegal strikes are a complicated topic, and in a safety oriented role such as ATC there is a certain responsibility to both push back on unsafe conditions, while also maintaining as much functionality as possible. Slowdowns, walkouts, sickouts, etc, all make sense to me, but a general strike seems like a serious escalation that raises the safety stakes to an unacceptable level.
- ookdatnog 6y ago
  I don't think there's a safety issue if there's a reasonable advance notice.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
justinph 6y ago
This is what should be done with Police departments in some places.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- frockington1 6y ago
  I think the idea of a Union for any public position creates a perverse incentive structure within government
  - canadianfella 6y ago
    Government positions should not be unionized.
firefoxd 6y ago
Honest question. What's the leverage of a union where it is illegal to strike?
- bluGill 6y ago
  Depends. They have a lot of workers and can pull tricks without actually striking. Make every airplane circle one extra time before landing (when not otherwise in an emergency where this would be unsafe) can make a point without doing harm. When dockworkers (IIRC in LA) decided to strike, but were not allowed to, they just came to work but they slowed work by driving forklifts at the 5mph that was in the handbook as the top speed instead of the faster speed they had been driving before. This backfired for them though, when the strike was resolved management took a firmer stance on the speed limit of forklifts because of how much safer everything was.
  - mnw21cam 6y ago
    That's called "work to rule", and it's a common option for union members to be able to vote for, as an action short of a full strike.
egypturnash 6y ago
The Great Communicator, in action. What a piece of shit that man was.
- datavirtue 6y ago
  I have to agree. Looking back and having the public face and the non-public actions laid out on the table I am blown away at how much lying was going on. Like Nixon, listening to his public address makes him seem so trust worthy and benevolent and right-mknded. Peel back the covers and you have punk racist gangsters running amuck.
Fede_V 6y ago
A couple of years later - Thatcher had a similar confrontation with the miners striking against the government in the UK. Note that miner strikes had taken down the previous government and obtained a lot of concessions - so the Thatcher government was actually prepared and had stockpiled coal / prepared a PR campaign for when the strike would actually take place.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
socialdemocrat 6y ago
Ronald Reagan is in large part responsible for many of the problems we face today. Him and Margaret Thatcher instituted a radical neoliberal revolution, for the benefit of the affluent and upper middle class. The result is an angry and bitter working class which you see in many countries especially in the US, who are looking for someone to blame. Some realize that somebody like Bernie Sanders could bring back some of their former glory while others blame minorities , immigrants and foreign countries. The vote on Trump. But both have a sliver of the truth. The free trade extremism of neoliberalism brought every worker in direct competition with low paid labour all over the world. At the same time the neoliberal destruction of unions deprived them of an ability to fight for their rights, wages and benefits.
otterley 6y ago
I will forever be amused that an airport (DCA) was subsequently named after Ronald Reagan.
RickJWagner 6y ago
The article makes the action seem unpopular, but I remember it differently. To my blue-collar family, the air traffic controllers were holding up travel and were demanding even more money. The author sees it from a different angle, I think. It's worth noting that 3 years later Reagan won re-election by winning 49 of 50 states. He lost only Minnesota, where he did not campaign. (He thought it would be unsporting and mean spirited, having seen the way polling was going.)
Markoff 6y ago
I would do same with vaccinated teachers refusing to teach children in classroom.

200 points by a_imho 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Note he fires them while supporting the union movement Solidarity in Poland. Totally sick. The beginning of the capitalist destruction of democracy.

nerdponx 6y ago
More like its revival as an "open" movement, which had been operating somewhat quietly behind the scenes since the early 20th century.
e2021 6y ago
Don't think this is true. From wikipedia it seems like this was a pretty straightforward dispute over pay and conditions.
- wyldfire 6y ago
  I misread the GP comment that way too. IIUC, GP says that Reagan is inconsistent: firing US air-traffic controllers on strike, but supporting foreign workers on strike.
imglorp 6y ago
Poland was yet another proxy activity pushing back the Soviets and communism. As Regan showed, it's never about the workers.
visiblink 6y ago
The destruction of an entire union by a former union president (Screen Actors Guild). That's some irony for you.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
tim333 6y ago
It's odd to equate supporting Solidarity in Poland with the destruction of democracy. I seem to recall the effect was in the other direction.

mavhc 6y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_(1968) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Contr...

MrBuddyCasino 6y ago
Worth reading. Apparently Reagan was right: "In striking, the union violated 5 U.S.C. (Supp. III 1956) 118p (now 5 U.S.C. § 7311), which prohibits strikes by federal government employees[...]"
- Pfhreak 6y ago
  "Right" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. Reagan was correct that the strikes may have been illegal, but I wouldn't say that Reagan was "right" to fire all the workers.
  - bgentry 6y ago
    It's not "doing a lot of heavy lifting" to use the word unambiguously in one of its many defined meanings. Clearly the parent was referring to Reagan being correct about the illegality of the strike (given that they cited the specific statute), not speaking about any moralistic righteousness. >Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. From https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - jgwil2 6y ago
      It's not clear that this was the only sense in which the word "right" was being used. Language is sometimes ambiguous like that, regardless of the intentions of the author.
    - tstrimple 6y ago
      A slave owner disciplining his slave used to be legal. It was never right.

Damogran6 6y ago

How did they handle the next day? I was young, but don't recall a paralyzing of the industry...

visiblink 6y ago
As I recall, in addition to administrators, they made use of the military.
- skohan 6y ago
  It seems amazing to me that you could replace all the air traffic controllers in one day with no impact on service. I mean even if military ATCs are available and qualified, it seems like you wouldn't have the numbers, and it seems like the kind of job where you would need a significant onboarding to learn the specifics of the airport where you're working
  - visiblink 6y ago
    There was an impact on service. I can't remember the levels (I was 10), but I'm sure someone must have studied it somewhere. It would be a really interesting piece of history to dig into and dissect.
    - justin66 6y ago
      There was an impact at the time, and there was a somewhat lesser, but still quite serious, impact a few decades later, as all the new hires reached mandatory retirement age in the same narrow window of time. There's still something of a cycle there which will be recurring.
  - rantwasp 6y ago
    i’m guessing one or more of the following happened 1) the traffic was not back to 100% instantly and they ramped it up over a longer period of time 2) they offered the people that were fired the option of temporarily keeping their job while they figured out their “new careers” 3) they started training asap and they also relaxed some of their standards/requirements when it came to hiring. It probably was not as swift and badass as it’s portrayed now.

andrewzah 6y ago

It's almost as if electing actors/celebrities to potus isn't a great idea. > The FAA had initially claimed that staffing levels would be restored within two years; however, it took closer to ten years before the overall staffing levels returned to normal.[1] > Reagan's firing of the government employees encouraged large private employers, like Phelps Dodge (1983), Hormel (1985–86), and International Paper (1987), to hire striker replacements instead of negotiating in labor conflicts.[17] Comparatively, in 1970 there were over 380 major strikes or lockouts in the U.S., by 1980 the number had dropped to under 200, in 1999 it fell to 17, and in 2010 there were only 11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_(1968) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Contr...

greenwich26 6y ago
I think it's good someone stood up to them. I'm French, we have endemic transportation strikes here, and it will turn your nice city/country into a shithole. The government should do what it takes to maintain infrastructure, transportation, and public services. That is, in fact, the main purpose of the government IMO.
- croes 6y ago
  Doesn't really work out in Britain and the US who pretty much demolished the unions, it's actually worse.
  - bluGill 6y ago
    The unions are not the cause of it being worse. You can even make the argument that they are one of the causes of things being worse. There is no reason to pay $200/hr to dig tunnels, but New York does. There is no reason to have 3 union employees on a train, automation can do most of their jobs better. These are two that I see transit advocates bring up in the US as to why our transit is so bad. (They are not the only reason, nor even the biggest, but they are factors hurting our transit)
    - 6y ago

fnord77 6y ago

> Richard Sharpe: "The strikers were often working-class men and women who had achieved suburban middle class lives as air traffic controllers without having gone to college. Many were veterans of the US armed forces where they had learned their skills; their union had backed Reagan in his election campaign. Nevertheless, Reagan refused to back down. Several strikers were jailed; the union was fined and eventually made bankrupt. Only about 800 got their jobs back when Clinton lifted the ban on rehiring those who went on strike. Many of the strikers were forced into poverty as a result of being blacklisted for [U.S. government] employment."

bradleyjg 6y ago
Class in American discourse is a weird thing. If they had achieved suburban middle class lives, what made them working class? In England, you might say well if your dad was working class then you are working class for your whole life regardless of anything else. But the American notion of class isn’t generally thought of that way.
- Pfhreak 6y ago
  > If they had achieved suburban middle class lives, what made them working class Did they earn their living by working? Then they are working class. If you make a salary or a wage, if you have a boss, you are working class. Did they make their living by owning stuff (e.g. landlords, investors, etc.)? Then they aren't working class. Edit: Surprised to see downvotes, Wikipedia defines it thus: > "The working class (or labouring class) comprises those engaged in waged or salaried labour, especially in manual-labour occupations and industrial work." White collar jobs are definitely working class folks.
  - bradleyjg 6y ago
    This is a definition intended to push people towards your preferred ideology rather than a neutral description of how the phrase is used out in the wild.
    - 6y ago

_wldu 6y ago

I worked with a man who was fired due to this. He told me that he did not think Reagan would do it (nor did his co-workers). He said that many of his colleagues had to switch careers.

hindsightbias 6y ago
And he probably voted for Reagan. It was curious then how such rational workers did not understand Reagan’s ideological bent. It’s not like he hid it.

lolinder 6y ago

Note that, regardless of the ethics of firing them en masse, the strike they were engaged in was, in fact, illegal. It's still in violation of the US Code for government employees to strike or even to claim the right to strike [0]. [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/7311 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/7311

jandrese 6y ago
In some ways it is strange they had a Union at all if the Union was toothless. It was a pleasant fiction that was utterly crushed the instant it tried to fight for its members.
freeflight 6y ago
This feels very counter-productive. Sure, an argument could be made that certain services are essential to keep running for the public good. But the people working in these kinds of sectors are usually very aware about that fact and will compensate for it by keeping a minimum level of service running even during a strike. While denying them their right to strike, in these essential sectors, is a recipe for steadily underfunding them without even having the "coal canary" of strikes happening to warn of it being underfunded and thus endangering the proper function of these essential sectors.
socialdemocrat 6y ago
Just like breaking segregation rules in the South was Illegal or for blacks and whites to marry during segregation in South Africa. I agree that laws matter, but I think people get too hung up on laws at times and don't take into account the profound importance of civil disobedience to advance society forward and get rid of immoral and unethical laws.
- iandanforth 6y ago
  A thousand times this.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

robtherobber 6y ago

If you don't mind the ideological aspect, this article from 2006 is rather relevant to this historic event: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2006/08/patc-a03.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2006/08/patc-a03.html "The smashing of PATCO marked a turning point in class relations both in the US and internationally. It signaled the definitive end of the policies of liberal reformism and relative class compromise that had predominated in the post-World War II period and the onset of a ruthless capitalist offensive against the working class that continues to this day. It also foreshadowed the collapse of the American trade unions and all of the old, bureaucratized labor organizations and parties internationally, which were based on nationalism and class compromise. Reagan’s assault on the PATCO strikers—an attack without precedent in modern US history—provoked massive opposition among working people both in the US and around the world. One month after Reagan fired the PATCO strikers, more than 500,000 workers converged on Washington, DC, in a “Solidarity Day” demonstration—the largest protest ever in the US—to express their outrage and opposition to the Reagan administration."

jmclnx 6y ago
But as I already noted, Reagan was re-elected in 1984 and a lot if his supporters were union members. IIRC, the leadership did endorse the Dem. candidate, who I do not even remember who he was.
- DFHippie 6y ago
  Mondale.
- robtherobber 6y ago
  I don't disagree with this, just like I don't disagree with the fact that many people who stood to lose from Brexit voted for Brexit. I think the conclusion here could be that these are both true at the same time: Reagan's actions did had a largely negative effect on workers' rights and that many people who were to be affected (or were already affected) by his actions voted for him.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

mkovach 6y ago

I ended up working a few ex-controllers in my IT career. They has some interesting stories to tell.

pydry 6y ago

Arguably calling in the military to break the strike is what drove the steady climb of income inequality up to today's levels as the private sector followed suit: "Reagan's firing of the government employees encouraged large private employers, like Phelps Dodge (1983), Hormel (1985–86), and International Paper (1987), to hire striker replacements instead of negotiating in labor conflicts.[17] Comparatively, in 1970 there were over 380 major strikes or lockouts in the U.S., by 1980 the number had dropped to under 200, in 1999 it fell to 17, and in 2010 there were only 11.[18] " http://www.the-crises.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/gini-index-usa.jpg http://www.the-crises.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/gini-in...

Pfhreak 6y ago
The military and police have a long history of being deployed against workers in the US. In at least one case firing upon striking coal workers. Companies like the Pinkertons have been using violence against striking workers for a long time, (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_strike ) and are still in operation and used to quell labor organizing today. Amazon hired the Pinkertons, for instance, to spy on their workers.
- psychometry 6y ago
  Why police unions are not part of the American labor movement https://theconversation.com/why-police-unions-are-not-part-of-the-american-labor-movement-142538 https://theconversation.com/why-police-unions-are-not-part-o...
- xxpor 6y ago
  The modern concept of police essentially started from the strike breakers in the late 1800s
  - UncleSlacky 6y ago
    And slave patrols (in the South, at least).
  - 6y ago

jmclnx 6y ago

Yes, I remember this, I was quite yong then. The USPS was on the verge of striking (my parents and many relatives worked there) and there were deeply worried (terrified) about this. The firing stopped that strike from happening. But yet again these union members voted for Reagan in 1984. I believe this was the start of union busting trend.

nameless912 6y ago
> I believe this was the start of union busting trend. Union busting is at least as old an American pastime as baseball.
hindsightbias 6y ago
There is a term - Reagan Democrats. Many of whom were/are union workers. And a lot of these people still bleat that the party left them behind in the 90s. I wonder why.

tengbretson 6y ago

It's unfortunate in situations like this, but strikers have to take on some degree of risk when they strike for any of this to work.

cwhiz 6y ago

Illegal strike was illegal. Government employees are not allowed to go on strike. Can you imagine if police or military were allowed to go on strike? The potential mayhem has no upper bound.

Tarq0n 6y ago
That's a very harmful assertion to make without supporting evidence. Police go on strike in other developed nations occasionally without major issues. In countries with healthy labor relations the union and employer sometimes negotiate about maintaining critical operations during a strike as well. Military strikes don't necessarily seems that harmful either considering the majority of military personnel is not on active deployment at any given time.
- cwhiz 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray-Hill_riot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray-Hill_riot There are numerous examples of mayhem when police go on strike. In most cases, the military, guard, or militia are brought in to maintain some semblance of order. There is a reason police strikes are illegal.
  - trasz 6y ago
    They are illegal in US, differently from many of the civilised countries.
    - cwhiz 6y ago
      Most countries in the world have restrictions on striking. Including Canada, Mexico, UK, France, Spain, Germany, South Korea, Japan, and others. Most of our allies. I guess none of these countries are civilized.
krageon 6y ago
> Can you imagine if police or military were allowed to go on strike Both parties are heavily invested in beating and harassing strikers, so you would have to assume their internal culture doesn't have a whole lot of space for the concept of going on strike.

cs702 6y ago

Reagan was a master of politics. Here's the warm, friendly letter he sent, before getting elected, to the union union of Professional Air Traffic Controllers (PATCO), promising to improve their working conditions if elected President of the US: https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8422/7536594466_92b4d4e020_z.jpg https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8422/7536594466_92b4d4e020_z.... The letter ends with Reagan making a promise to work together in harmony: "I pledge to you that my administration will work very closely with you to bring about a spirit of cooperation between the president and the air traffic controllers. Such harmony can and must exist of we are to restore the people's confidence in their government." Instead, once Reagan assumed power, he became a ruthless adversary of the union. -- Sources: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2012/7/9/1107835/-Remembering-Reagan-s-Sweet-Little-Lie-to-the-Air-Traffic-Controllers https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2012/7/9/1107835/-Rememberi... / https://www.npr.org/2006/08/03/5604656/1981-strike-leaves-legacy-for-american-workers https://www.npr.org/2006/08/03/5604656/1981-strike-leaves-le...

InTheArena 6y ago
Do you really think that linking to dailykos, which considers Reagan only slightly worse then Bin Ladin is really a good link? You can argue what Reagan wanted, but there is also no doubt that the union dramatically overplayed it's hands. This was not unusual in the aviation business at the time. There was a major carrier that went to the union and claimed they needed concessions to reform their business to deal with deregulation. The union said, sure, we will do it if you open all your books to us and prove it. The company did, then asked for ratification of the pre- negotiated contract. The union looked at the books, decided that the companies was in fact doomed without them. However, the union represented not just workers at that carrier, but other carrriers as well, and since the union was also present in other carrier theydemanded a top of the market contract to bleed the company dry (and force other carriers to match the contract) figuring that if the company was on it's way it, it should take as much as possible as it could before they went down. (The union/corporate battles at this time are insane. Both the union leaders and the executives were forbidden from exercising leadership ever again - see Frank Lorenzo, Jack Bavis, Charlie Bryan).
- 6y ago

RHSeeger 6y ago

I find the whole situation really interesting for so many reasons. The fact that the strike was against the law is one of them. However, the most interesting part to me is that it highlights the core dynamics involved in a union. Specifically, the idea behind a union is that it changes the power dynamic; by organizing and working together, the employees try to level the power imbalance between employer and employees. A strike is a particularly clear manifestation of that idea; the employees are saying "give us this, because if you don't we won't work... and you can't just fire us all as it will be catastrophic for you". And it is a powerful manifestation of that, and has a history of working well for the employees. However, in this case, the "employer" has nearly unlimited resources. And the answer to the statement of "you can't just fire us all" was.. "You are incorrect. You did not put enough thought into your position in all this. You are fired... and blacklisted". Regardless of the side you fall on as to whether the reaction was appropriate or not, it did shine a spotlight on the fact that every union is in a different position, and all factors must be considered before resorting to a "might makes right" action (which is what a strike is, even if it was right before might is taken into consideration).

petermcneeley 6y ago
Im not a lawyer but I dont think unions work as you describe. Specifically " and you can't just fire us all as it will be catastrophic for you". In terms of game theory the only way a union can really work is if it is illegal to fire a union employee for simply being part of the union (or being on strike). In the cases where the law does not provide such protections union will take physical action against the employer.
- safog 6y ago
  Can you explain more? I thought employers always had the right to terminate employees, union or not.
  - RHSeeger 6y ago
    After Peter's reply, I looked into it a bit. This page has some useful information on it https://employment.findlaw.com/wages-and-benefits/labor-strike-faqs.html https://employment.findlaw.com/wages-and-benefits/labor-stri...

AcerbicZero 6y ago

I was entirely unfamiliar with this event, and I haven't done enough reading to understand the nuance yet - from pure emotion I can say, as a private pilot, whatever we pay our ATC's isn't enough. Illegal strikes are a complicated topic, and in a safety oriented role such as ATC there is a certain responsibility to both push back on unsafe conditions, while also maintaining as much functionality as possible. Slowdowns, walkouts, sickouts, etc, all make sense to me, but a general strike seems like a serious escalation that raises the safety stakes to an unacceptable level.

ookdatnog 6y ago
I don't think there's a safety issue if there's a reasonable advance notice.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

justinph 6y ago

This is what should be done with Police departments in some places.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
frockington1 6y ago
I think the idea of a Union for any public position creates a perverse incentive structure within government
- canadianfella 6y ago
  Government positions should not be unionized.

firefoxd 6y ago

Honest question. What's the leverage of a union where it is illegal to strike?

bluGill 6y ago
Depends. They have a lot of workers and can pull tricks without actually striking. Make every airplane circle one extra time before landing (when not otherwise in an emergency where this would be unsafe) can make a point without doing harm. When dockworkers (IIRC in LA) decided to strike, but were not allowed to, they just came to work but they slowed work by driving forklifts at the 5mph that was in the handbook as the top speed instead of the faster speed they had been driving before. This backfired for them though, when the strike was resolved management took a firmer stance on the speed limit of forklifts because of how much safer everything was.
- mnw21cam 6y ago
  That's called "work to rule", and it's a common option for union members to be able to vote for, as an action short of a full strike.

egypturnash 6y ago

The Great Communicator, in action. What a piece of shit that man was.

datavirtue 6y ago
I have to agree. Looking back and having the public face and the non-public actions laid out on the table I am blown away at how much lying was going on. Like Nixon, listening to his public address makes him seem so trust worthy and benevolent and right-mknded. Peel back the covers and you have punk racist gangsters running amuck.

Fede_V 6y ago

A couple of years later - Thatcher had a similar confrontation with the miners striking against the government in the UK. Note that miner strikes had taken down the previous government and obtained a lot of concessions - so the Thatcher government was actually prepared and had stockpiled coal / prepared a PR campaign for when the strike would actually take place.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

socialdemocrat 6y ago

Ronald Reagan is in large part responsible for many of the problems we face today. Him and Margaret Thatcher instituted a radical neoliberal revolution, for the benefit of the affluent and upper middle class. The result is an angry and bitter working class which you see in many countries especially in the US, who are looking for someone to blame. Some realize that somebody like Bernie Sanders could bring back some of their former glory while others blame minorities , immigrants and foreign countries. The vote on Trump. But both have a sliver of the truth. The free trade extremism of neoliberalism brought every worker in direct competition with low paid labour all over the world. At the same time the neoliberal destruction of unions deprived them of an ability to fight for their rights, wages and benefits.

otterley 6y ago

I will forever be amused that an airport (DCA) was subsequently named after Ronald Reagan.

RickJWagner 6y ago

The article makes the action seem unpopular, but I remember it differently. To my blue-collar family, the air traffic controllers were holding up travel and were demanding even more money. The author sees it from a different angle, I think. It's worth noting that 3 years later Reagan won re-election by winning 49 of 50 states. He lost only Minnesota, where he did not campaign. (He thought it would be unsporting and mean spirited, having seen the way polling was going.)

Markoff 6y ago

I would do same with vaccinated teachers refusing to teach children in classroom.