4 ms·

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.
    - dijit 5y ago
      I mean; he did. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYdvBZxPhLY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYdvBZxPhLY Additionally; laws follow humans, not the other way. If you're a person in a profession that is not allowed to argue for better conditions: then that's the best way to get the worst possible conditions. Seems like a false economy to force people to accept the conditions that they get with no recompense. A bitter FTC employee is much worse than a strike. A bitter FTC employee can kill hundreds.
  - beerandt 5y ago
    The argument was whether firing a critical employee made sense if they're critical. An ATC being fired doesn't ground flights any more than an ATC on strike grounds flights. "Stop getting a paycheck" is just a euphemism for "the employee/union has already burned their leverage and gets fired".
- tomtimtall 5y ago
  This logic sounds like an argument for chopping of you hand if it falls sleep. There is an obvious and straightforward way of getting those 12000 people to work again. There is no argument for firing them just because they are striking outside of petty displays of power and pure stupidity.
  - beerandt 5y ago
    Firing people in a high position of trust and responsibility who have just broken that trust isn't a petty display of power. And how is it stupid to conclusively resolve an ongoing dispute that intentionally threatens national air travel? Just because one side loses doesn't make the decision 'stupid'. Replacements were found and the world didn't end. The notion that labor isn't replaceable when their demands exceed their replacement costs is absurd, no matter how skilled they are or how critical their work is. Especially when the opponent is the government, the one entity that gives unions their power of monopoly, and the one opponent who doesn't need to act rationally when determining "replacement costs".
    - dijit 5y ago
      If they could be replaced then the notion of it being illegal because they were "absolutely required" should be called into question. You can't make it illegal to strike on the grounds of it being dangerous; then fire everyone for it with little or no issue: it just tells us that the reasons for it being illegal were bullshit.

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.
  - dijit 5y ago
    I mean; he did. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYdvBZxPhLY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYdvBZxPhLY Additionally; laws follow humans, not the other way. If you're a person in a profession that is not allowed to argue for better conditions: then that's the best way to get the worst possible conditions. Seems like a false economy to force people to accept the conditions that they get with no recompense. A bitter FTC employee is much worse than a strike. A bitter FTC employee can kill hundreds.
- beerandt 5y ago
  The argument was whether firing a critical employee made sense if they're critical. An ATC being fired doesn't ground flights any more than an ATC on strike grounds flights. "Stop getting a paycheck" is just a euphemism for "the employee/union has already burned their leverage and gets fired".
tomtimtall 5y ago
This logic sounds like an argument for chopping of you hand if it falls sleep. There is an obvious and straightforward way of getting those 12000 people to work again. There is no argument for firing them just because they are striking outside of petty displays of power and pure stupidity.
- beerandt 5y ago
  Firing people in a high position of trust and responsibility who have just broken that trust isn't a petty display of power. And how is it stupid to conclusively resolve an ongoing dispute that intentionally threatens national air travel? Just because one side loses doesn't make the decision 'stupid'. Replacements were found and the world didn't end. The notion that labor isn't replaceable when their demands exceed their replacement costs is absurd, no matter how skilled they are or how critical their work is. Especially when the opponent is the government, the one entity that gives unions their power of monopoly, and the one opponent who doesn't need to act rationally when determining "replacement costs".
  - dijit 5y ago
    If they could be replaced then the notion of it being illegal because they were "absolutely required" should be called into question. You can't make it illegal to strike on the grounds of it being dangerous; then fire everyone for it with little or no issue: it just tells us that the reasons for it being illegal were bullshit.