6 ms·

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 pa

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...
  - bluGill 6y ago
    Unions often will not allow termination via the contract. If the company doesn't like someone they need to take it up with the union. If the union likes the "bad person", then you are probably stuck as everyone else in the union will walk off the job if you try to fire that person. If the union hates someone that you like, the union can refuse membership to that person (I've never heard of this happening, though unions often do refuse membership to someone unknown to you who might or might not be good) Of course each union contract is different, but it is very common for it to be impossible to fire a bad union employee as the union won't let you. (and in fact the union often won't even let you collect data that shows how bad they are). None of the above applies to every case. If you don't show up for work, then you are out: no union will defend someone who can't even be bothered to show up. If you do something illegal you are out. These days sexual harassment is something the union won't defend (in the past that wasn't true) and so you will be fired for that. Each contract has different fine print.
- RHSeeger 6y ago
  I wasn't aware of that, so thank you for pointing it out. It is worth noting that it doesn't change the underlying thought I was getting at, though. When a union decides to strike, the options other than "concede" (that's a simplistic way of putting it, obviously, since most strikes result in some sort of compromise) that are available to the employer need to be considered.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
altacc 6y ago
The employer might have had practically unlimited resources in terms of money but it did not have unlimited resources in terms of qualified air traffic controllers and this is where the leverage normally is. Replacing employees in most jobs has a cost and so strikes hope to leverage an economic cost/benefit analysis as well as public & media sympathy. In this case anti-union ideology overrode the cost/benefit of this strike. It sounds like proper staffing levels for air traffic controllers weren't restored for about 10 years, so there was a substantial cost.
pydry 6y ago
> and all factors must be considered before resorting to a "might makes right" action (which is what a strike is, It's interesting that you characterized putting down your tools and stopping work as "might makes right" but not using the military for the purposes of strikebreaking.
- RHSeeger 6y ago
  I didn't speak about the military breaking the strike at all, except as to note that I wasn't really talking about which side was right in this particular instance. Yes, calling the military in to break the strike is very much "might makes right"; it just wasn't what I was commenting on. I was commenting on the dynamics of how strikes work and the fact that this event highlighted certain facts that tend to be ignored.
lettergram 6y ago
I think there's a major issue with unions - if I'm paying tax dollars to fund said union, then they're part of the "general good". I don't think public unions are acceptable because it's essentially the government (union employees) to extort money from the citizens. In many places, we call that corruption. Private unions I think are alright, I'm not opposed to (as an employer) having to negotiate with my employees. However, protections should be limited, because my shareholders are also entitled to their opinions as owners.
- krageon 6y ago
  From your stance it looks like you're a US citizen. Many, many people lived through horrific times to give you the privilege of workers' rights. Before that, the environments were terrible for them. Now you propose reversing that because (presumably) you are wealthy and you feel that you're entitled to power. I'm just not sure why you'd say that out loud, is what I guess I'm really curious about. It really speaks very poorly of a historical (or even current time) sense of empathy to look at employees in this way.
  - function_seven 6y ago
    The distinction between public sector unions and private unions is important here. I'm very strong on unionization in general, but opposed to public sector reasons. Primarily for a reason you state in your comment: > ...you feel that you're entitled to power. I do. Yes. This is a democracy, and the people are supposed to hold the power to determine how government allocates resources. When a police union decides that the dirty cop will keep his job, against the will of the people they're supposed to protect and serve, I find it objectionable. Collective bargaining in government service substitutes the employees’ power for that of the voters’. In the private sector, they even the playing field when owners (who seek profit) face off against labor (who seek wages). In the public sector, it's a fight between the taxpayer and the earner about how the taxpayer's dollar is spent.
- partiallypro 6y ago
  I think it's ironic that a lot of people hate on Reagan for this but ignore that FDR was a huge critic of public unions. I personally am for private unions but do not believe public unions should exist. Police unions for instance are one of the single biggest obstacles to police reform, and the same is true of teacher unions and education reform. Public unions and general stake holders in the status quo makes reform incredibly difficult, if not impossible. Unions in Germany and other countries operate very differently than in the US as well, and that is often ignored.
justin66 6y ago
> 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. It's worth noting that it was catastrophic for air travel to fire all those people. It had long-term knock-on effects as well, since all the new people hired to replace the people who had been fired later retired within a narrow window of time, creating a staffing crisis. Since there's a mandatory retirement age, this is likely to be a cyclical thing, although there's been recent legislation proposed that would appear to make working past the mandatory retirement age an option for workers. Maybe some workers will jump at the chance to continue in a highly stressful, safety critical position well into their sixties...
Leherenn 6y ago
Well, as a counter example, a similar thing happened in France in 1973. ATC went on strike, and they were replaced by military controllers. This was a direct cause of a mid-air collision[1], which resulted in the government folding, and the start of French ATC terrorising European skies. To this day, ATC unions are really strong, and their compensation/working conditions are crazy good compared to their European neighbours. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Nantes_mid-air_collision https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Nantes_mid-air_collisio...

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...
- bluGill 6y ago
  Unions often will not allow termination via the contract. If the company doesn't like someone they need to take it up with the union. If the union likes the "bad person", then you are probably stuck as everyone else in the union will walk off the job if you try to fire that person. If the union hates someone that you like, the union can refuse membership to that person (I've never heard of this happening, though unions often do refuse membership to someone unknown to you who might or might not be good) Of course each union contract is different, but it is very common for it to be impossible to fire a bad union employee as the union won't let you. (and in fact the union often won't even let you collect data that shows how bad they are). None of the above applies to every case. If you don't show up for work, then you are out: no union will defend someone who can't even be bothered to show up. If you do something illegal you are out. These days sexual harassment is something the union won't defend (in the past that wasn't true) and so you will be fired for that. Each contract has different fine print.
RHSeeger 6y ago
I wasn't aware of that, so thank you for pointing it out. It is worth noting that it doesn't change the underlying thought I was getting at, though. When a union decides to strike, the options other than "concede" (that's a simplistic way of putting it, obviously, since most strikes result in some sort of compromise) that are available to the employer need to be considered.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

altacc 6y ago

The employer might have had practically unlimited resources in terms of money but it did not have unlimited resources in terms of qualified air traffic controllers and this is where the leverage normally is. Replacing employees in most jobs has a cost and so strikes hope to leverage an economic cost/benefit analysis as well as public & media sympathy. In this case anti-union ideology overrode the cost/benefit of this strike. It sounds like proper staffing levels for air traffic controllers weren't restored for about 10 years, so there was a substantial cost.

pydry 6y ago

> and all factors must be considered before resorting to a "might makes right" action (which is what a strike is, It's interesting that you characterized putting down your tools and stopping work as "might makes right" but not using the military for the purposes of strikebreaking.

RHSeeger 6y ago
I didn't speak about the military breaking the strike at all, except as to note that I wasn't really talking about which side was right in this particular instance. Yes, calling the military in to break the strike is very much "might makes right"; it just wasn't what I was commenting on. I was commenting on the dynamics of how strikes work and the fact that this event highlighted certain facts that tend to be ignored.

lettergram 6y ago

I think there's a major issue with unions - if I'm paying tax dollars to fund said union, then they're part of the "general good". I don't think public unions are acceptable because it's essentially the government (union employees) to extort money from the citizens. In many places, we call that corruption. Private unions I think are alright, I'm not opposed to (as an employer) having to negotiate with my employees. However, protections should be limited, because my shareholders are also entitled to their opinions as owners.

krageon 6y ago
From your stance it looks like you're a US citizen. Many, many people lived through horrific times to give you the privilege of workers' rights. Before that, the environments were terrible for them. Now you propose reversing that because (presumably) you are wealthy and you feel that you're entitled to power. I'm just not sure why you'd say that out loud, is what I guess I'm really curious about. It really speaks very poorly of a historical (or even current time) sense of empathy to look at employees in this way.
- function_seven 6y ago
  The distinction between public sector unions and private unions is important here. I'm very strong on unionization in general, but opposed to public sector reasons. Primarily for a reason you state in your comment: > ...you feel that you're entitled to power. I do. Yes. This is a democracy, and the people are supposed to hold the power to determine how government allocates resources. When a police union decides that the dirty cop will keep his job, against the will of the people they're supposed to protect and serve, I find it objectionable. Collective bargaining in government service substitutes the employees’ power for that of the voters’. In the private sector, they even the playing field when owners (who seek profit) face off against labor (who seek wages). In the public sector, it's a fight between the taxpayer and the earner about how the taxpayer's dollar is spent.
partiallypro 6y ago
I think it's ironic that a lot of people hate on Reagan for this but ignore that FDR was a huge critic of public unions. I personally am for private unions but do not believe public unions should exist. Police unions for instance are one of the single biggest obstacles to police reform, and the same is true of teacher unions and education reform. Public unions and general stake holders in the status quo makes reform incredibly difficult, if not impossible. Unions in Germany and other countries operate very differently than in the US as well, and that is often ignored.

justin66 6y ago

> 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. It's worth noting that it was catastrophic for air travel to fire all those people. It had long-term knock-on effects as well, since all the new people hired to replace the people who had been fired later retired within a narrow window of time, creating a staffing crisis. Since there's a mandatory retirement age, this is likely to be a cyclical thing, although there's been recent legislation proposed that would appear to make working past the mandatory retirement age an option for workers. Maybe some workers will jump at the chance to continue in a highly stressful, safety critical position well into their sixties...

Leherenn 6y ago

Well, as a counter example, a similar thing happened in France in 1973. ATC went on strike, and they were replaced by military controllers. This was a direct cause of a mid-air collision[1], which resulted in the government folding, and the start of French ATC terrorising European skies. To this day, ATC unions are really strong, and their compensation/working conditions are crazy good compared to their European neighbours. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Nantes_mid-air_collision https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Nantes_mid-air_collisio...