5 ms·

Famously, air traffic controllers striked in 1981 when Ronald Reagan was president. He fired all of them -- almost 12,000 people. Certain groups are just not l

Famously, air traffic controllers striked in 1981 when Ronald Reagan was president. He fired all of them -- almost 12,000 people. Certain groups are just not legally allowed to strike in the US. Air traffic controllers are critical to the economy and safety of the country.

TomK32 5y ago
It took the FAA ten years to recover from this and regain previous staffing levels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_(1968)#August_1981_strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Contr...
- TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
  Didn’t know that. Another interesting point is that all of the fired air traffic controllers were banned for life from working that job again. That helps explain why it took 10 years to recover: all the new employees were probably newly trained.
  - hbosch 5y ago
    And, I believe, FAA training is famously hard and unforgiving. I've heard if you fail one of the tests, you are out forever and cannot reapply (for air traffic controllers).
rocgf 5y ago
There are exceptions like this everywhere in Europe. Can't speak for Denmark specifically, but anecdotally most countries in Europe have similar rules - certain workers cannot legally strike the same way McDonald's workers can.
- isbvhodnvemrwvn 5y ago
  One recent example is in Poland - you can't strike if not working causes risk to health and life of people, so when EMTs went to strike they just quit their jobs en masse.
- nielsbot 5y ago
  See the recent nurses strike in Denmark. I think they are legal forbidden from striking... https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/danish-government-intervenes-end-nurses-strike-2021-08-27/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/danish-government-inter...
  - liversage 5y ago
    The Danish nurses' strike was not illegal. The Danish labor market is governed by special rules. On one side you have the workers organized in unions. On the other side the employers that are also organized. They negotiate the work conditions typically every year. In this case it was the nurses' union vs. the public healthcare system. The nurses voted no to the proposed agreement and eventually went on strike. Because nurses are critical to healthcare it was very controlled which nurses were included in the strike. The negotiations continued but it was impossible to reach an agreement and the number of nurses on strike increased over time. Eventually the government decided to intervene and made the initial proposed agreement into law. This is part of the organization of the Danish labor market that if a conflict continues for too long there can be an intervention from the government. Some nurses being angry about the outcome continued smaller strikes. These strikes are illegal within the framework of the labor laws. There's a special court ("Arbejdsretten" or "The labor court") that can decide that both the nurses as well as their union have to pay fines for illegal strikes. This is not a criminal court. The main reason that the nurses went on strike is because they want greater pay. Historically nurses and many other public jobs were governed by special rules where they were not allowed to strike but could also not easily be fired ("tjenestemand"). This system was inflexible and was modernized in 1969. The nurses ended up with lower pay compared to similar jobs in terms of education (schoolteacher, policeman) most likely because being a nurse is typically a woman's job. This pay gap still exists today where the nurses now are allowed to strike within the framework of the labor laws in an attempt to increase their pay.
    - nielsbot 5y ago
      Amazing reply. Mange tak.
    - nights192 5y ago
KptMarchewa 5y ago
Well, you also need to have reasonable demands if you want other people to support you. >In February 1981, PATCO and the FAA began new contract negotiations. Citing safety concerns, PATCO called for a reduced 32-hour work week, a $10,000 pay increase for all air-traffic controllers and a better benefits package for retirement.[9] Negotiations quickly stalled. Then, in June, the FAA offered a new three-year contract with $105 million of up front conversions in raises to be paid in 11.4% increases over the next three years, a raise more than twice what was being given to other federal employees, “The average federal controller (at a GS_13 level, a common grade controller) earned $36,613, which was 18% less than private sector counterpart";[10] with the raise demanded, the average federal pay would have exceeded the private sector pay by 8%, along with better benefits and shorter working hours. However, because the offer did not include a shorter work week or earlier retirement, PATCO rejected the offer.[11]
pipnonsense 5y ago
If 12,000 of them were fired (all at once?), so they are not that critical to the economy and the safety of the country to the point that can't strike, right?
- beerandt 5y ago
  If they're already not showing up, firing them just means the paychecks stop. Once that card (striking) has been played, you lose any leverage afforded by avoiding interruptions of "economy and safety".
  - doikor 5y ago
    That makes no sense as a reason for firing someone. If you are not showing up for work (striking) you are not getting paid anyway. This is why the unions build up huge war chests so that they can pay their striking members. For example the largest property investor in Finland is a company owned by the unions. So they got wealth in the billions to fight if need be.
    - TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
      It makes sense to me. Paying striking members is a losing battle once those members are fired: you’ll be paying them indefinitely in this case because there is only one employer for air traffic controller jobs in the USA, the federal government. Reagan did not negotiate with terrorists, either. These people were knowingly and purposefully breaking federal law. What kind of example does it set to continue negotiations with them after that?
      - smolder 5y ago
        > Reagan did not negotiate with terrorists, either. The Iran-Contra affair seems like a pretty clear case of negotiating with terrorists.
      - biaachmonkie 5y ago
        That's an obviously unjust law. Removing workers right to strike removes a major point of leverage they have in negotiating for better working conditions and compensation.

TomK32 5y ago

It took the FAA ten years to recover from this and regain previous staffing levels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_(1968)#August_1981_strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Contr...

TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
Didn’t know that. Another interesting point is that all of the fired air traffic controllers were banned for life from working that job again. That helps explain why it took 10 years to recover: all the new employees were probably newly trained.
- hbosch 5y ago
  And, I believe, FAA training is famously hard and unforgiving. I've heard if you fail one of the tests, you are out forever and cannot reapply (for air traffic controllers).

rocgf 5y ago

There are exceptions like this everywhere in Europe. Can't speak for Denmark specifically, but anecdotally most countries in Europe have similar rules - certain workers cannot legally strike the same way McDonald's workers can.

isbvhodnvemrwvn 5y ago
One recent example is in Poland - you can't strike if not working causes risk to health and life of people, so when EMTs went to strike they just quit their jobs en masse.
nielsbot 5y ago
See the recent nurses strike in Denmark. I think they are legal forbidden from striking... https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/danish-government-intervenes-end-nurses-strike-2021-08-27/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/danish-government-inter...
- liversage 5y ago
  The Danish nurses' strike was not illegal. The Danish labor market is governed by special rules. On one side you have the workers organized in unions. On the other side the employers that are also organized. They negotiate the work conditions typically every year. In this case it was the nurses' union vs. the public healthcare system. The nurses voted no to the proposed agreement and eventually went on strike. Because nurses are critical to healthcare it was very controlled which nurses were included in the strike. The negotiations continued but it was impossible to reach an agreement and the number of nurses on strike increased over time. Eventually the government decided to intervene and made the initial proposed agreement into law. This is part of the organization of the Danish labor market that if a conflict continues for too long there can be an intervention from the government. Some nurses being angry about the outcome continued smaller strikes. These strikes are illegal within the framework of the labor laws. There's a special court ("Arbejdsretten" or "The labor court") that can decide that both the nurses as well as their union have to pay fines for illegal strikes. This is not a criminal court. The main reason that the nurses went on strike is because they want greater pay. Historically nurses and many other public jobs were governed by special rules where they were not allowed to strike but could also not easily be fired ("tjenestemand"). This system was inflexible and was modernized in 1969. The nurses ended up with lower pay compared to similar jobs in terms of education (schoolteacher, policeman) most likely because being a nurse is typically a woman's job. This pay gap still exists today where the nurses now are allowed to strike within the framework of the labor laws in an attempt to increase their pay.
  - nielsbot 5y ago
    Amazing reply. Mange tak.
  - nights192 5y ago

KptMarchewa 5y ago

Well, you also need to have reasonable demands if you want other people to support you. >In February 1981, PATCO and the FAA began new contract negotiations. Citing safety concerns, PATCO called for a reduced 32-hour work week, a $10,000 pay increase for all air-traffic controllers and a better benefits package for retirement.[9] Negotiations quickly stalled. Then, in June, the FAA offered a new three-year contract with $105 million of up front conversions in raises to be paid in 11.4% increases over the next three years, a raise more than twice what was being given to other federal employees, “The average federal controller (at a GS_13 level, a common grade controller) earned $36,613, which was 18% less than private sector counterpart";[10] with the raise demanded, the average federal pay would have exceeded the private sector pay by 8%, along with better benefits and shorter working hours. However, because the offer did not include a shorter work week or earlier retirement, PATCO rejected the offer.[11]

pipnonsense 5y ago

If 12,000 of them were fired (all at once?), so they are not that critical to the economy and the safety of the country to the point that can't strike, right?

beerandt 5y ago
If they're already not showing up, firing them just means the paychecks stop. Once that card (striking) has been played, you lose any leverage afforded by avoiding interruptions of "economy and safety".
- doikor 5y ago
  That makes no sense as a reason for firing someone. If you are not showing up for work (striking) you are not getting paid anyway. This is why the unions build up huge war chests so that they can pay their striking members. For example the largest property investor in Finland is a company owned by the unions. So they got wealth in the billions to fight if need be.
  - TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
    It makes sense to me. Paying striking members is a losing battle once those members are fired: you’ll be paying them indefinitely in this case because there is only one employer for air traffic controller jobs in the USA, the federal government. Reagan did not negotiate with terrorists, either. These people were knowingly and purposefully breaking federal law. What kind of example does it set to continue negotiations with them after that?
    - smolder 5y ago
      > Reagan did not negotiate with terrorists, either. The Iran-Contra affair seems like a pretty clear case of negotiating with terrorists.
    - biaachmonkie 5y ago
      That's an obviously unjust law. Removing workers right to strike removes a major point of leverage they have in negotiating for better working conditions and compensation.